Bhim Singh Negi. vs Registrar, Uttarakhand Cooperative Society, Dehradun & others.

Appellant is the writ petitioner. Writ Petition No. 2039 of 2015 (S/S) was filed by the appellant for quashing the order dated 09.09.2015 passed by the Member Secretary/District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Uttarakhand, Chamoli, whereby the appellant has been suspended. In the suspension order, it is written that the appellant is being suspended for not taking interest in the work of Society, remaining absent in the departmental meetings, violating the departmental orders, is irresponsible towards his duties and remaining continuously absent in the office of the Society.

The matter was heard by the learned Single Judge on 30.10.2015. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents informed the learned Single Judge that petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1901 of 2015, challenging his transfer order from one cooperative

society to another cooperative society and the same fact was concealed by the petitioner in the subsequent writ petition. On 02.11.2015, the learned Single Judge directed the petitioner to remain present in the Court on the subsequent date i.e. on 23.11.2015. Both the writ petitions were clubbed together and were heard by the learned Single Judge. Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1901 of 2015, challenging the transfer order of the petitioner from one cooperative society to another cooperative society, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by observing that the transfer has been made after four years and there is no anomaly in the transfer order. Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2039 of 2015 was also dismissed by observing that there are several grounds for suspending the petitioner and a departmental enquiry is already on. Further, there are serious charges against the petitioner such as he has failed to obey the orders of superior authorities and has not joined at his transferred place of posting and there are also charges of irregularities against the petitioner. The learned Single Judge, thereafter, observed that the petitioner has sworn a false affidavit by not disclosing the fact that he has already challenged his transfer order in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1901 of 2015 and directed the petitioner to be present before the Court on 23.11.2015. The petitioner, thereafter, moved a recall application, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 15.12.2015. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the recall application, directed the petitioner to file a detailed reply as to why contempt proceedings may not be drawn against him for having sworn a false affidavit before the Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2039 of 2015, inasmuch, there is no mention of his earlier writ petition (WPSS No.

1901 of 215) filed by him before this Court. Feeling aggrieved by these two orders, the appellant is before us.

We heard Mr. S.K. Posti, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 & 2 and also Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate for respondent no. 3.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the transfer order, transferring the appellant from one cooperative society to another cooperative society before completing five years of period, is in violation of Rule 36-B of the Cooperative Society Rules, which provides that the Secretary shall not be transferred from one society to another before completing five years of period. He submitted that petition for quashing of suspension order should not have been dismissed by observing that petitioner failed to obey the order of superiors and has not joined at his transferred place. He submitted that neither there was any enquiry conducted nor any notice was ever served on the appellant for any alleged violation committed by him, therefore, on this ground also, the suspension order of the appellant deserves to be set aside. He contended that the suspension order of the appellant is in total violation of the said Rules and is arbitrary and illegal. Further, the same is also biased and is a politically motivated order. He submitted that though, in the suspension order dated 09.09.2015, it was provided that an enquiry committee was to be constituted, which will give its report within one month; but, the committee has not given its report so far. He submitted that in the enquiry conducted by the

District Magistrate, Chamoli dated 03.08.2015, the petitioner has been exonerated of all the allegations levelled against him and, despite this fact, the respondents have not revoked his suspension order dated 09.09.2015. He submitted that it is a settled principle of law that an employee cannot be permitted to remain suspended for such a long period and the period of suspension cannot be more than 90 days. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the appellant referred to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in a matter of "Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union Of India", reported in 2015(7) SCC 291 in para 21, wherein the Court has held that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months as if within this period the memorandum of charge sheet is not served on delinquent employee.

Though, the allegation of being biased and politically motivated is levelled by the learned counsel for the appellant in his argument; but, there is nothing in the pleading to substantiate that the order of suspension has been passed in a biased manner. Further, the authority, which has passed order of suspension, has not been made party in the writ petition in personal capacity. It is also not pleaded in the writ petition that in what manner the suspension order is politically motivated. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the transfer order of the appellant has been passed in violation of the relevant Rules and, therefore, the suspension order is also bad, cannot be accepted. Writ Petition filed by the appellant challenging his transfer order has already been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Against the same, appellant has not filed any

Appeal, therefore, he cannot be permitted to raise that argument, while challenging his suspension order. We also find that, in the suspension order of the appellant, reasons for suspending him are clearly mentioned. We do not find any valid ground, on which basis judgment of the learned Single Judge should be interfered with. It is also the fact that no final decision has yet been taken by the disciplinary authority in this matter. In our view, the disciplinary authority should not keep the matter pending for a long. In this case, we find that appellant was suspended on 09.09.2016 and more than 11 months have passed; but, no decision has yet been taken. We direct the disciplinary authority to take final decision in the matter within a period of one month from today. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified to that extent. With this modification, the Special Appeal is disposed of.

The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the recall application, directed the petitioner to file a detailed reply as to why contempt proceedings may not be drawn against him for having sworn a false affidavit before the Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2039 of 2015, inasmuch, there is no mention of his earlier writ petition (WPSS No. 1901 of 215) filed by him before this Court. We do not find any ground, on which this order should be interfered with by us. Appellant can file his detailed reply in that.