D.V.Sehgal, J. - (1.) Dharam Pal petitioner is practising as an Advocate at Kaithal, District Kurukshetra. He is an elected Sarpanch of village Chhot. He is also a member of the Block Samiti, Kaithal. He is a Director of the Kaithal Co-operative Marketing-curn-Processing Society Limited, Kaithal. He was also elected to the office of Director, Kurukshetra Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Kurukshetra. In this capacity, he sought election to the office of Director, Haryana Co-operative Bank Limited, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank') and was duly elected to the said office. He claims that, since his election as Director of the Bank, he has been taking keen interest in the development of the co-operative movement.
(2.) On 7-11-1985 he was staying in the Guest House of the Bank, located in House No. 713, Sector 8, Chandigarh. Jaibir Singh Verma, member of the Haryana Subordinate Services Selection Board, was also staying there. He states that the Directors of the Bank had been feeling inconvenience during their stay in the Guest House of the Bank at Chandigarh as it mostly remained occupied by persons not entitled to occupy the same. He objected to the stay of Mr. Jaibir Singh Verma who took it ill and there was soere unpleasentness between them at night on 11-7-1985. Shri Verma is stated to have reported the matter to the Managing Director of the Bank who in turn, recommended to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies respondent No, 2, that action should be taken against the petitioner under Section 34 of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Respondent No. 2, vide an order dated 7-8-1985, in the purported exercise of power under sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the Act, suspended the petitioner from the membership of the Committee of the Bank and also served him with a notice to show cause as to why he should not be removed from the membership of the Committee of the Bank under Section 35 (1) of the Act. He submitted his reply to show cause notice but no action on the same was taken for quite some time. He, therefore, filed Civil Writ Petition No. 4398 of 1985 in this Court, challenging the order of his suspension and the show cause notice served on him for his removal from the membership of the Committee of the Bank. The aforesaid writ petition came up for meation hearing before the Division Bench after notice to the respoadents. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, a direction was issued to respondent No. 2 to complete the enquiry in pursuance of the show notice and pass an appropriate order by 5-12-1985. After receiving evidence and hearing arguments of the parties, respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order dated 4-12-1995 (Annexure P-1) directing removal of the petitioner from the membership of Managing Committee of the Bank. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by filing Civil PetitionNo. 5825 of 1985, It came up for motion hearing on 25-2-1986. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Division Bench passed the following orders : "It is not disputed that an appeal lies against the impugned order. Consequently, we direct the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned order within a fortnight from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid time ; as stated by Mr. Bishnoi, the learned counsel for the State, the same shall disposed of on merits by the competent authority within two months of the receipt of the appeal and objection with regard to limitation shall not be entertained. In case the appeal is not filed within a fortnight, then the same shall not be entertained. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of." In pursuance of the above order of the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 114 of the Act againt the order of respondent (Annexure P-1) before the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Haryana Co-operative Department, vide memorandum of appeal Annexure P-2. The same has, however, been dismissed by the said Appellate Authority, vide order dated 2-5-1986 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present writ petition against the impugned orders. Annexure P-1 and P-3, with a prayer that the same are ultra vires the provisions of Section 35 (1) of the Act and are violative of the principles of natural justice.
(3.) The petition has been opposed by the respondent and a written statement on their behalf has been filed by (he Additional Registrar (Credit), Co-operative Societies of Haryana. It has been asserted that the impugned orders have been passed in pursuance of the power vested by the Act and that the petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity to explain his position. The impugned orders were passed after due enquiry and consideration of the reply filed by the petitioner.;