- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner is challenging the suspension order dated 19 -5 -2003 (Annexure -1 to the Writ Petition). The petitioner was a Secretary of a Co -operative Society and one of his duties was to make recoveries of the money advanced by the society. In the impugned suspension order it has been mentioned that Rs. 20,54,000 is in arrears from the members of the society but the petitioner recovered only a sum of Rs. 59,000. Thus, he recovered only 2.87% of the demand. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Chandra Pandey v. District Administrative Committee, Primary Agricultural Co -operative Credit Societies Centralised Service, Bahraich and others, 1997 AWC (Supp) 761. In para 15 of the said judgment, it is mentioned that a Member/Secretary can suspend a member of the Centralized Service under Regulation 59 (1) (f) (i) or (iii) in absence of a decision of the District Committee, but he cannot suspended a member under Regulation 59 (1) (f) (ii) without any decision of the District Committee. Regulation 59 (1) (f) (i) states: (f) A member other than one referred to in clause (e) above may be placed under suspension by the District Committee or any other officer authorised for the purpose in the following circumstances: (i) when the said authority is satisfied that a prima facie case exists, which is likely to result in the removal, dismissal or reduction in rank of the member.; (ii) when an inquiry into his conduct is immediately contemplated or is pending and his further continuance on his post is considered detrimental to the interest of the society or the authority; (iii) when a complaint against him of any criminal offence is under police investigation for which he has been arrested or he is undergoing trial in a Court of law for an offence under the Indian Penal Code, U.P. Co -operative Societies Act, 1965 or any other Act or charges have been proved against him by a Criminal Court.
(3.) IN our opinion, the case of the petitioner falls within Clause (i) of the above provision because the very fact that the petitioner made recovery of only 2.87% of the demand prima facie indicates that he was in collusion with the loanees. It is so shocking that it leads to a reasonable inference that the petitioner colluded with the persons who took the loans.;