- (1.) This writ application is directed against an order dated 1.5.1996 as contained in Annexure "N" to the writ application. The fact that the petitioner was charge-sheeted and was placed under suspension is not in dispute. It appears from the impugned order that he did not file his written statement in respect of articles of charges. He also did not intimate the name of the witnesses and the list of documents to be relied on by him in support of his defence. An ex parte enquiry was held against the petitioner. The Board found the petitioner guilty and imposed punishment. The only question which arises for consideration in this writ application is as to whether the proviso appended to Rule 48 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules had been complied with or not. In paragraph 27 of the writ application the petitioner has, inter alia, contended that no notice had been issued to him proposing the punishment to be imposed on him and thus he had not been given an opportunity to file a representation. The said statements have been traversed in paragraph 31 of the Affidavit-in-Opposition, from a perusal whereof it appears that the same had not been denied. Thus the aforementioned allegation made by the petitioner in paragraph 27 of the writ application must be deemed to have admitted.
(2.) Rule 48(f) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules reads thus : "to appoint, discharge or to dismiss or to remove employees of the society ; Provided that no employee of a co-operative society shall be dismissed or removed from service except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being. heard in respect of those charges, and where it is proposed, after such inquiry, to dismiss or remove him, until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed." As in terms of the aforementioned rules an opportunity has to be given to the petitioner to make a representation as regard opposed punishment and as in this case admittedly such provision has not been complied with, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
(3.) Mr. Basu, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 8.4.1994 passed by Ruma Pal, J. in C.O. No. 17336(W) of 1993, in terms whereof the petitioner was directed to make over all keys and documents etc. in his possession relating to the affairs of the respondent society. It has been stated by the respondent in paragraph 17 of the affidavit-in-opposition to the following effect : "In answer to paragraph 14(c) of the petition. I say that the Hon'ble Justice Ruma Pal was pleased to pass order on 8.4.1994 in Civil Order No. 17336(W) of 1993 directing the petitioner to make over all keys, documents etc. in his custody relating to the affairs of the society by 11.4.1994 and in default the society would be at liberty to break open any lock or paid-lock in presence of the Sub-Divisional Officer-Rampurhat, in whose presence the inventory should be prepared.";