Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by impugned order dated 27.8.2009, by which the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Allahabad Region, Allahabad has issued three directions, i.e., (i) for lodging a first information report against the petitioners at concerned police station, (ii) for holding domestic enquiry against concerned five persons who were involved in the embezzlement, and (iii) to complete enquiry under Section 68 (1) of U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for assessing the loss suffered by the society/bank. It appears that certain financial irregularities/embezzlement had taken place in Kisan Seva Sahkari Samiti Limited Shah, Fatehpur during the period 1994 to 1999, which were reported to the authorities. After holding enquiry under Section 68 (1) of the Act, petitioner No. 4 was found to be guilty. He has been dismissed from service and the remaining petitioners in the preliminary enquiry against them have also been found to be involved alongwith him in the financial irregularities. In the aforesaid backdrop, the impugned order dated 27.8.2009 has been passed. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing impugned order dated 27.8.2009 appended as Annexure-3 to the writ petition and further for a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the aforesaid order.
(3.) THE order impugned is assailed on the ground that it is evident from perusal of the order that enquiry under Section 68 (1) of the Act is still pending against the petitioners in respect of alleged financial irregularities said to have been committed during the period 1994 to 1999. It is stated that there can be no occasion for lodging F.I.R. or for initiating another disciplinary action in the circumstances for it will undoubtedly put the petitioners in double jeopardy as final orders under Section 68 (1) of the Act are yet to be passed by the competent authority. It is also stated that if any financial irregularities or any kind of loss to the society is found proved against delinquent employees, then such loss can be ordered to be compensated under Section 68 aforesaid, and as such the impugned order passed by respondent No. 3 is arbitrary, hasty and passed with ulterior motives towards the petitioners.;