Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition was filed by petitioner Megh Singh way back in the year 1997 with prayer that action of respondents of removing him from service be declared illegal and order of removal be quashed and set -aside.
(2.) IT is contended that appointment of petitioner was made on account of fact that petitioner's father late Shri Shiv Singh died in February, 1993 while in service of respondent as Manager Ibrahimpur Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti Limited, Panchayat Samiti, Roopwas, District Bharatpur. After death of his father, petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground as his dependent. Respondent Society on that basis resolved to appoint petitioner and the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bharatpur, by his order dated 05.06.1993, approved the said appointment. It is contended that removal of petitioner made on alleged ground that he made respondent Society to suffer loss, is wholly unfounded. If the petitioner was sought to be removed on the ground of alleged misappropriation of money of various members of the Society, the respondents were required to hold a full -fledged disciplinary proceedings against him by serving a charge -sheet upon him and giving him an opportunity to contest the charges by producing evidence and only thereafter only the services of petitioner could be brought to an end. Learned Counsel submitted that plea set up by respondents now before this Court that petitioner was removed because a duly appointed Manager became available, is only an afterthought and respondents cannot be allowed to set up a new case before this Court. In any case, full time Manager became available in November, 1995. As per the stand of the respondents themselves that they passed a resolution to this effect on 10.11.1995, the service of petitioner was terminated in June, 1993. Learned Counsel submitted that an appointee on compassionate ground has to be treated as regular appointee as per various decisions of this Court of Single Benches and Division Benches and he cannot be removed in such a summary manner without taking recourse to the provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958.
(3.) ALTHOUGH the respondents filed reply to writ petition in which apart from merit, they have raised an objection that petitioner was not employee of the respondent Bank and that he was employee of the Society and that a dispute of this nature ought to be referred to arbitration under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies, 1965; however, on merits it is stated that appointment of petitioner was made on two conditions that he will not cause any loss to the society and as soon as full time Manager is appointed, he shall cease to be in service. He was appointed on the post of Assistant Manager at the rate of Rs. 500/ - per month. This decision was approved by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bharatpur by his letter dated 05.06.1993. A copy of the said order has been produced on the record both by the petitioner and the respondents. It is contended that the petitioner violated the first condition of appointment because he misappropriated Rs. 1000/ -, 1000/ -, 1000/and 4000/ -, respectively, which he recovered from different members of the society and all these four persons gave receipts, copies of which are enclosed with reply to the writ petition. Another condition of appointment order is that his appointment would be seized to exist on the day when a full time Manager was appointed. It is contended that full time Manager was appointed by resolution of the Society dated 10.11.1995 and therefore the removal of petitioner was fully justified. Even though the petitioner argued that his appointment was made on compassionate ground but there is no material on record nor any such document has been produced to show his appointment on compassionate ground. It is a matter of coincidence that petitioner applied for his appointment on the post which was earlier held by his father and vacancy was caused on account of death of his father. This Court however cannot draw any inference from the facts merely on that basis to hold that the appointment of petitioner was made on compassionate ground.;