- (1.) By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the impugned order dated 30-3-1992 passed by the Secretary, Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Beruim Development Block Bahariya Distt. Allahabad (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'Society'), whereby the Petitioner was suspended.
(2.) Petitioner was an Accountant in the Society and he was officiating as Secretary. On the posting of a regular Secretary in the Society, Petitioner was asked to handover the charge and on his failure to do so, he was placed under suspension by the Secretary of the Society by the aforesaid order for disobeying the same.
(3.) Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for Petitioner made following three fold submissions: (a) that the impugned order is bad and is without jurisdiction as the same has been passed by the Secretary of the Society who is not competent authority to suspend the Petitioner as in view of the definition of the word "employee" as given in sub-Clause (a) of Rule 2 of the U.P. Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies Centralised Service Rules 1976 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as the 'Centralised Service Rules') His services would be governed under the said Rules, wherein the authority of the Secretary of the Society is not competent to pass any order regarding suspension, as there under it is the authority of the District Administrative Committee or Chairman District Administrative Committee or Secretary Distt. Administrative Committee, who could have passed the order of suspension against the Petitioner. (b) that the Petitioner having been allowed to work on the post of the Secretary in the Society in pursuance of the circular of the Registrar. Cooperative Society dated 29-4-1992, which is Annexure IV to the petition, his services would be governed by the aforesaid Centralised Service Rules, under which the authority of the Secretary of the Society, is not competent to pass the impugned order of suspension; and (c) that the Petitioner has been suspended on the basis of non-compliance of the order relating to his transfer, which remained dormant for about two years and the impugned order of suspension having been passed after lapse of two years, is bad.;