Prabhu Dayal Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Proceedings of this matter has been takenÂ​up through video conferencing.

The petitioner herein calls in question legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 5.4.2010 (Annexure PÂ10) passed by the State

Government, whereby the State Government in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction setÂaside the order dated 12.9.2008 (Annexure PÂ9) passed by

the Additional Registrar, CoÂoperative Societies/Second Appellate Authority by which the Second Appellate Authority has affirmed the order of the

first appellate authority dated 31.12.2007.

Services of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Samiti Manager were terminated on 4.10.2004, against which he raised a dispute under Section

55(2) of the Chhattisgarh CoÂoperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter called as 'Act of 1960'), which was dismissed by the Assistant Registrar,

CoÂoperative Societies, Rajnandgaon on 25.7.2005, against which, the petitioner preferred first appeal before the Joint Registrar, CoÂoperative

Societies/First Appellate Authority. The first appellate authority by its order dated 31.12.2007 (Annexure PÂ8) held that no evidence has been

adduced against the petitioner and no enquiry has been done before terminating his services and the enquiry officer has not held him fully responsible

for misconduct and accordingly, allowed the appeal and setÂaside the order of the Assistant Registrar, CoÂoperative Societies dated 26.7.2005,

against which respondent No.5 preferred an appeal before the Additional Registrar, CoÂoperative Societies. The Additional Registrar, CoÂoperative

Societies by its order dated 12.9.2008 (Annexure PÂ9) dismissed the appeal affirming the order passed by the first appellate authority dated

31.12.2007, against which, respondent No.5 again preferred revision before the State Government. The State Government by the impugned order

dated 5.4.2010 (Annexure PÂ​1) allowed the revision, which has been called in question by the petitioner in this writ petition.

Mr.Rakesh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that by unreasoned and nonÂspeaking order the revisional authority has

allowed the revision preferred by respondent No.5, which is unsustainable and bad in law.

On the other hand, Mr.Souyma Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents No.1 to 4/State, would support the impugned order.

None present for respondent No.5, though served.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost

circumspection.

The first appellate authority has allowed the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that enquiry was not conducted in accordance with rules and no

reasonable opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner and held that the petitioner was even not fully guilty of said misconduct, which the

second appeal appellate authority has also affirmed in appeal, but revisional authority merely relying upon the notice dated 14.7.2004 and statement of

the petitioner has been recorded on 28.7.2004 allowed the revision.

A careful perusal of the record would show that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses examined by enquiry

officer and on that basis, the first appellate authority has recorded a finding that enquiry was not conducted as per rules and the petitioner was not

afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing in the said enquiry, but the revisional authority interfered with only on the ground that the petitioner was

present during enquiry and his statement has also been recorded. That will not suffice because unless a reasonable opportunity of hearing much less to

crossÂexamine the departmental witnesses and further opportunity to lead evidence is given and enquiry is conducted in accordance with rules, no

order of termination can be passed. The revisional authority without meeting with the findings and without reversing the findings of the first appellate

authority has allowed the revision, which is totally against the law & perverse to record.

In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 5.4.2010 (Annexure PÂ10) passed by the revisional authority is hereby setÂaside and that of

the second appellate authority affirming the order of the first appellate authority is hereby restored.

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No order as to cost(s).