- (1.) COPY of the dispute case which was filed by the petitioner under section 55 (2) of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act is filed today by the ARCS Chhatarpur. It is taken on record. Parties heard.
(2.) PETITIONER in this revision petition is challenging the legality of the order dated 2.12.2000 passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Headquarters, Bhopal under the following circumstances :- Petitioner was appointed in N.A. No. 2 society as clerk in the year 1983. He absented from duties from 3.8.1991 to 10.4.1996. According to the petitioner during this period he was ill and submitted his medical certificate to this effect. But he was not permitted to join his duties. In the meantime an enquiry was conducted against him about his school certificates on the record that they were forged. But the enquiry officer did not find this fact proved, however, he found the petitioner guilty of unauthorised absence, partly. The enquiry was concluded in the year 1990 and in the year 1997 he was issued charge sheet by the then Managing Director of N.A. No. 2 society. Managing Director of N.A. No. 2 society wrote a letter dated 5.5.2002 to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bhopal, seeking guidence on the ground that the petitioner is guilty of submitting false certificates and on their basis obtained employment and also guilty of remaining absent unauthorisedly, continuously for about 5 years from duties. But no action has been taken against him by the then Managing Director. This letter was replied by the Joint Registrar, Headquarters Bhopal on 2.12.2000 and the Managing Director was informed that he himself is competent to take decision in the matter. No any guidance is necessary. Petitioner is guilty of major misconduct for which decision can be taken to dismiss him from service. Learned Joint Registrar also opined that he does not agree with the report of the enquiry officer.
(3.) THIS letter is under challenge in this revision petition. Learned petitioner counsel contended that the Joint Registrar has passed the order under challenge without hearing the petitioner and the said order is contrary to law, being violative of the principles of natural justice. In support of his contentions he has relied on a decision of the High Court reported in (State Bank of India & others v. Arvind Kumar Shukla) 1998 (2) JLJ 103. In this case it was observed that when there is disagreement of the disciplinary authority with the findings of the enquiry authority on different reasonings and the recommendations are made to the higher authority, such report would constitute an additional material for the consideration of the punishing authority for passing the final order. An employee would certainly be prejudiced, if he is not asked to make submissions or the representations or is not provided the opportunity of hearing, against such additional material, which came into existence behind his back. But in this case the Joint Registrar, headquarters was not the disciplinary authority and thus the case is distinguishable. Letter of Joint Registrar was only advisory in reply to the guidence sought by the disciplinary authority.;