Birendra Prasad vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

Heard learned senior counsel Mr. V. Shivnath for the petitioner and learned J.C. to G.P. 1 for the Respondents.

In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 20.04.2001, passed by respondent No. 2 in Election Dispute No. 3 of 2000 as well as the order dated 7.7.2006, passed by respondent No. 3 in Misc. Appeal No. 197 of 2003.

The petitioner, who was working as a Co-operative Extension Officer, Jamshedpur Circle, Jamshedpur in the year 2000, was appointed as an Election Officer by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies cum Conducting Officer, Jamshedpur, for conducting the election of the Managing Committee of Tisco Tube Division, Co-operative Society, Limited, Jamshedpur. Besides the petitioner, an Observer and other members were also appointed so that fair election be held. On 5.12.2000, the elections were held and upon counting the votes, results were declared and 8 committee members were declared elected out of 23 contestants, in which one Braj Nandan Prasad had secured 408 votes, whereas one Mohan Pandey had secured 361 votes. Certificate was also issued by the petitioner in his capacity as an Election Officer to the elected members of Tisco Tubes Employees Credit Co-operative Society Limited, Jamshedpur. An Election Dispute Case was filed by one Mohan Pandey, who had contested the election for the post of Member of Managing Committee, before the District Co-operative Officer, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa, with a prayer to set aside the election and result of Shri Braj Nandan Prasad. The case, which was registered as Election Dispute No. 3 of 2000 was heard on 4.1.2001 and notices were issued to the said Braj Nandan Prasad and subsequent thereto by order dated 11.04.2001, the District Cooperative Officer passed an order for recounting of votes. A writ application was preferred by the said Braj Nandan Prasad being CWJC No. 1473 of 2001 as the date for recounting of votes was fixed on 18.04.2001 but the said writ application was subsequently withdrawn. A final order was passed on 20.07.2001 in the said Election Dispute No. 3 of 2001, in which aspersions were cast upon the petitioner that since the petitioner was related to Braj Nandan Prasad, he had deliberately and wrongfully counted votes in favour of Braj Nandan Prasad which he had not polled. Resultantly, the order dated 20.04.2001 passed by the District Co-operative Officer also indicated that in future in the election of Co-operative Society, the petitioner shall not be appointed as an Electoral Officer and that the petitioner should be proceeded against departmentally for his acts of omission and commission during his role as an Election Officer in the election of Tisco Tube Division Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Jamshedpur. The order dated 20.04.2001 was challenged before the Registrar, Co-operative Society, Jharkhand, Ranchi being Appeal Case No. 197 of 2003, who, vide order dated 7.7.2006 had affirmed the order of the District Co-operative Officer and had recommended for initiation of a departmental proceeding and that in future the petitioner should not be allowed to conduct the election in Cooperative Societies.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that neither the District Co-operative Officer nor the Registrar, Cooperative Societies had the power under Section 48 of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act, 1935 to debar the petitioner from taking part in the election process or to recommend a departmental proceeding against the petitioner. It has been submitted that Section 48 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act does not give power to the authorities to recommend initiation of a departmental proceeding and the same in case of election is restricted to the election dispute only and not beyond that. It has further been submitted that the provision under Section 48 of the Act has not been properly considered either by the District Co-operative Officer or the Registrar, Co-operative Society and that they had exceeded their jurisdiction while passing the impugned orders dated 20.04.2001 and 7.7.2006.

Learned J.C. to G.P. V, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as an Election Officer for holding the election to the Managing Committee of Tisco Tube Division Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Jamshedpur and his act of taking steps by counting the bogus votes in favour of Braj Nandan Prasad was unbecoming of his position as a government servant. It has further been submitted that the order dated 20.04.2001 clearly reveals that the petitioner had taken an active part in order to get Braj Nandan Prasad elected to the committee at the cost of one Mohan Pandey, who was shown to have polled less vote than he actually had.

On declaration of the result of election held in Tisco Tube Division, Co-operative Society, Limited, Jamshedpur, based on a complaint made by one of the losing candidates Mohan Pandey, Election Dispute No. 3 of 2000 was instituted and on recounting of the votes, an order was passed on 20.04.2001 by the District Cooperative Officer, in which apart from the fact that there was some election malpractices, recommendations were made for initiation of a departmental proceeding against the petitioner as also debarring the petitioner from taking part in election process in future in any Cooperative Society. This order was affirmed by the Registrar, Cooperative Society, Jharkhand, Ranchi on 7.7.2006. None of the authorities, who had passed the impugned order had taken into consideration the limits of the power to be exercised under Section 48 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935. Section 48 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 deals with disputes and categories have been delineated with respect to a dispute touching the business of a registered society other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the society or its managing committee against a paid servant of the society. The District Co-operative Officer was to look into the election dispute on the basis of complaint made by one of the losing candidates-Mohan Pandey. The District Cooperative Officer had acted beyond the scope and purview of Section 48 of the Act. The provision referred to above does not indicate that a District Co-operative Officer while deciding an election dispute can recommend initiation of a departmental proceeding or can bar an Electoral Officer from taking part in the electoral process of a Co-operative Society in future. Recommending disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner seems to be beyond the purview of the provision of Section 48 of the Act and this fact has not been properly considered by the appellate authority while affirming the order of the District Co-operative Officer vide order dated 07.07.2006. It is, thus, apparent from perusal of the impugned orders dated 20.04.2001 and 7.7.2006 that both the authorities had exceeded their jurisdiction vested upon them under Section 48 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 and in such circumstances, the recommendations being stigmatic in nature is liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, in view of the discussions made herein above, the order dated 20.04.2001 passed by the District Co-operative Officer, Chaibasa and the appellate order dated 7.7.2006, passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jharkhand in Misc. Appeal No. 197 of 2003 with respect to recommendation of initiation of a departmental proceeding against the petitioner, are hereby quashed.

This writ application is allowed.