Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondent on 20.8.90 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 26.7.90 (Annex. 13) passed by the respondent (Managing Director, Sirohi Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.) by which services of the petitioner were terminated under Rule 17(4) of the PACKS Cooperative Society Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1977) with immediate effect, be quashed and set aside.
(2.) The facts as put forward by the petitioner are as under: (i) That when the petitioner was posted at Lunol Gram Cooperative Society (hereinafter referred to as the Society) as Manager, the Officiating Assistant Executive Officer inspected the Society from 9.1.88 to 10.1.88 and in his inspection report, it was found that the petitioner was guilty of misappropriation of property of the society. (ii) That the further case of the petitioner is that on the basis of inspection report of Assistant Executive Officer, the respondent served charge-sheet dated 28.1.88 (Annex. 1) on the petitioner which contained 6 charges. (iii) That the petitioner filed reply (Annex.2) to the charge- sheet dated 28.1.88 issued against him. (iv) That on the basis of charge-sheet dated 28.1.88 (Annex. 1), a case was registered against the petitioner under Section 74 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Society Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1965) in the court of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sirohi bearing case No.190/88. (v) That in case No.190/88 registered against the petitioner in the Court of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, the Assistant Registrar found the petitioner guilty of five charges out of six charges and for the sixth charge, the petitioner was discharged under Section 74(2) of the Act of 1965 and an order dated 30.7.88 (Annex.6) was passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 28218.25 in the society. The petitioner was further directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1000/- as surcharge and Rs. 500/- as process fees under Section 74(7) of the Act of 1965. (vi) That in compliance of order dated 30.7.88 (Annex.6) passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, the petitioner deposited Rs. 18,000/- vide receipt dated 27.10.88 (Annex.7) and Rs. 10,000/- vide receipt dated 1.7.89 (Annex.8). (vii) That thereafter the petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated. 14.8.1989 which was received by the petitioner on 5.10.1989 and further a penalty of stoppage of one grade increment was also imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner was also allowed some more time to deposit the amount of surcharge and process fees. (viii) That further case of the petitioner is that after his reinstatement, he was subjected to hostile discrimination and when he was not paid the arrears of his salary, he submitted several representations in this respect. A copy of representation dated 9.6.90 is marked as Annex.10. (ix) That further case of the petitioner is that he was given a show cause notice dated 12.4.90 (Annex. 11) by the respondent as to why his services be not terminated under Rule 17(4) of the Rules of 1977. (x) That the petitioner submitted reply (Annex.12) to the notice dated 12.4.1990 (Annex.11). (xi) That further case of the petitioner is that thereafter through order dated 26.7.90 (Annex. 13), the services of the petitioner under Rule 17(4) of the Rules of 1977 were terminated. Hence, the present writ petition with the above- mentioned prayer.
(3.) In this writ petition, the following submissions has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner: That since on the basis of same allegations, a penalty of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect was already imposed on the petitioner through order dated 14.8.89 (Annex.9) passed by the respondent and further more, he reinstated in service, therefore, issuance of notice dated 12.4.90 (Annex. 11) and order dated 26.7.90 (Annex. 13) passed by the respondent are bad in law and they should be set aside as the petitioner was subjected to double jeopardy as enquiry for the same charges had already been conducted by the Assistant Registrar and further more, the impugned order dated 26.7.90 (Annex. 13) is violative of article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition be allowed.;