AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J
In view of office note, notice is declared to be validly served on respondent no.3.
Instant petition has been filed for issuing writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 17.06.2016 and 16.11.2017 whereby and whereunder the petitioner-society has been directed to reconsider the matter of termination of respondent no.3. The petitioner-society is a registered society and respondent no.3 is an ex-employee of the petitioner-society who was appointed to the post of Junior Clerk in the year 1982. He was dismissed from service vide order dated 31.08.2012 after conducting departmental proceeding on being found being involved in several irregularities in the conduct of business of petitioner-society, including misappropriation of several lakhs of rupees out of the fund of the society by making false entries in the books of accounts.
Not only he was dismissed from service but even criminal proceedings were initiated against him and after expiry of about four years, the respondent no.3 filed an appeal being Appeal Case No.7/2016 before the respondent no.2-Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jharkhand, Ranchi by which the impugned orders have been passed and aggrieved by the same, instant writ petition has been filed.
It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that in the first place, the respondent no.2 had no jurisdiction to pass such an order concerning the dismissal of respondent no.3. Section 48 of the Bihar and Orissa Society Registration Act, 1935 provides that Registrar cannot interfere in the matter where disciplinary action has been taken against a paid servant. The matter has been settled in this regard by Hon’ble Patna High Court in Salendra Narain Singh Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Muzaffarpur & Others, 1980 SCC OnLine Pat 22, (para 3 & 7).
Specific stand has been taken by respondent nos.1 & 2 in the counter affidavit that respondent no.3 had been acquitted of the charges in G.R. No.2110 of 1997 and the appeal against it, was dismissed. It is submitted in this regard that acquittal in a criminal case will not ipso facto result in exoneration in departmental enquiry as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka& Another Versus Umesh, (2022) 6 SCC 563.
Learned counsel on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 submits that the petitioner was duly acquitted of the criminal charges and considering this aspect, direction for reinstatement of the respondent has been passed.
Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, the matter for consideration is two folds.
Firstly, whether Registrar, Cooperative Societies, had power under Section 48 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 to pass the impugned order. Secondly, whether acquittal in a criminal case can be the sole ground for reinstatement.
Section 48. Disputes.—(1) If any 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) arises.—
From the opening line of the above provision it is abundantly clear that a dispute regarding disciplinary taken by the Society or its Managing Committee against a paid servant of the society cannot be referred to or decided by the Registrar. Ratio laid down by Patna High Court in Salendra Narain Singh (supra) is also to the same effect. Therefore the order of the Registrar was without jurisdiction and non-est in the eyes of law.
Law that acquittal in a criminal case cannot perforce result in departmental inquiry is long settled and has been followed in State of Karnataka v. Umesh & Another, (2022) 6 SCC 563 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 655 :
In Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn. Ltd. v. C. Nagaraju [Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn. Ltd. v. C. Nagaraju, (2019) 10 SCC 367 : (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) 92] , this Court has held : (SCC p. 371, para 9)
“9. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising the power to conduct departmental proceedings in accordance with the rules and regulations. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. [Ajit Kumar Nag v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 764 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 1020] In the disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the respondent is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment, as the case may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings, the question is whether the offences registered against him under the PC Act are established, and if established, what sentence should be imposed upon him. The standard of proof, the mode of inquiry and the rules governing inquiry and trial in both the cases are significantly distinct and different. [State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1455] ”
Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for the reasons above stated, impugned order is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside.
Writ Petition is allowed. Interlocutory Application, if any, is also disposed of.