Mukesh Verma vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Shri Navneet Kaushik, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned Brief Holder for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Rakesh Thapliyal, the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 3. and 4.

The petitioner is an Accountant in a Cooperative Society and on charges of embezzlement was suspended by an order dated 29th September, 2006. The first information report was also lodged. While investigation into the charges was being made, the petitioner was again suspended on another charge on 16th May, 2007. This suspension order was revoked by an order dated 25th July, 2007. Based on the first suspension order, the petitioner was chargesheeted by an order dated 8th August, 2007 and, by an order dated 4th January, 2008, the committee of management of the Society passed a resolution resolving to terminate the services of the petitioner and forwarded the matter to the Registrar for necessary approval. While the matter was pending approval, the Administrator took charge of the society and without waiting for a formal approval, initially, passed an order of termination dated 31st January, 2008 but subsequently, revoked the said order on the very next date of 1st February, 2008.

Notwithstanding the passing of the order of termination and its consequential revocation by the Administrator, the Assistant Registrar by an order dated 1st September, 2008 approved the Resolution of the Committee of the society for terminating the services of the petitioner. Prior to the passing of this order, the Chairman of the Society issued an order dated 24th July, 2008 holding that the petitioner was entitled to be paid the salary since he was still working. This order of the Chairman dated 24th July, 2008 was consequently cancelled by the Assistant Registrar by its order dated 24th September, 2008. The Assistant Registrar again reiterated by its order dated 10th October, 2008 holding that the petitioner was not entitled to be paid salary since the order of termination of his services had already been approved by him. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Accountant and to pay him the arrear of salary.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the order of termination was revoked by the Administrator, there is no order terminating his services and, therefore, he should be allowed to work as an Accountant in the Society and he should be paid his arrears of salary. In my opinion, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is bereft of merit. There are three orders of the Assistant Registrar. The first order is the order dated 1st September, 2008 whereby the resolution of the Committee of the Society for terminating the services of the petitioner has been approved. This order has attained finality and has not been challenged. Consequently, as on date, the petitioner''s services has been terminated and it is incorrect for the petitioner to state that there is no order of termination or that the order of termination has been revoked. Consequently, the direction of the Chairman of the Cooperative Societies to pay him his salary was rightly revoked by the Assistant Registrar by its order dated 24th July, 2008 and 10th October, 2008.

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed.