- (1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioner Srikaranpur Kraya-Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Limited, Sri Karanpur and its Chief Executive Officer have questioned the order dated 06.06.2003, as passed by the Additional Registrar (Appeals), Co-operative Societies, Jodhpur in Revision Petition No. 4/2002, which was preferred by the Ex-Manager of the Society Shri Santokh Singh (respondent No.1 herein) with reference to Section 128 of the then applicable Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 ('the Act of 1965') read with Section 107 of the newly enacted Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 ('the Act of 2001') against the inquiry report dated 09.01.2002, as made by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bikaner under Sub-sections (6) and (7) of Section 70 of the Act of 1965.
(2.) BY the impugned order dated 06.06.2003, the learned Additional Registrar, while exercising revisional powers, has quashed the inquiry report dated 09.01.2002. The order impugned has been challenged by the petitioner-Society with the submissions that the revisional authority has exceeded its jurisdiction and, without recording requisite findings, has proceeded to upset the considered order passed by the subordinate authority. It is also submitted that pursuant to the report made under Sub-section (6) and (7) of Section 70 of the Act of 1965, further proceedings were to be taken up, including those under Section 74 of the Act of 1965 wherein, adjudication over the charges would have been made but, without allowing the natural course of action after the report by the inquiry Officer, the revisional authority has proceeded to interfere rather at a pre-mature stage. Pet contra, it is contended on behalf of the respondent No.1 that he has superannuated in the year 2009 and hence, for all practical purposes, this petition has been rendered infructuous. It is also submitted that the revisional authority has thoroughly considered all the allegations and has given the findings with reasons on all the issues calling for determination; and, therefore, no case for interference in the writ jurisdiction is made out.
(3.) AFTER having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the record, this Court is of the view that the matter deserves to be sent back to the revisional authority for consideration afresh in accordance with law, particularly when the impugned order appears suffering from jurisdictional errors.;