Hon'ble CHOPRA, J. - (1.) - These two writ petitions raise common questions of law although they are based on different facts and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common Order/Judgement.
(2.) THE facts necessary for the disposal of these two writ petitions briefly stated are as follows: FACTS OF BIRMA RAM CHOUDHARY'S CASE : Petitioner BirmaRam was initially appointed as a Class IV employee in the Jodhpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Jodhpur in the year 1971 and is still continuing on the said post working in its Phalodi Branch. He was confirmed on the post of Class IV employee vide Order Annexure-1 dated 15.2.1974. This confirmation order was made in pursuance of the decision of the Board of Directors of the respondent Bank in their meeting held on 14.1.1974. Thereafter, it is alleged that the petitioner applied for leave on medical grounds from 5.6.1989 to 13.61989. Alongwith his application for grant of medical leave, he also filed a medical certificate issued from a Medical Officer and inspite of this, he was treated to be willfully absent from duty and a chargesheet (Annexure-2) dated 28.7.1989 was served upon him. He was also suspended from service vide order Annexure-3 dated 18.7.1989. The petitioner has contended that his suspension order (Annexure-3) as also the Chargesheet (Annexure-2) have been issued by an incompetent authority. This chargesheet has been issued to the petitioner under r.16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1959 (for short 'the Rules of 1958' ). Cin averments have been made as regards the gepuineness of the medical leave but the main ground of attack is that the suspension order as also the chargesheet have been issued by an incompetent authority. It has been further contended that the chargesheet is arbitrary and void. It has been issued to the petitioner without following the principles of natural justice. According to the petitioner, the Rules of 1958 cannot be made applicable to his case and, therefore, the disciplinary actions taken against him are ab-initio void. According to the petitioner, the Resolution passed in the year 1958 by the Board of Directors of the Bank shows that the Bank has its own Rules as regards the conducting of disciplinary enquiries against the employees of the respondent Bank. The petitioner has further submitted that the Class IV employees of the respondent Bank had entered into a settlement with the respondent Bank and on that basis, an Award was passed by the Labour Court in the year 1965. That Award and Settlement have got legal force and they will override all the Rules framed by the respondent Bank. It was submitted that by this Award, the conditions of Service of Class IV employees have been laid down but while suspending the petitioner, the respondents have not followed the procedure prescribed under this Award. It was submitted that in view of the decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Chandrashekhar Bose V. UOI(l), such Awards have legal force. It was further submitted that the Rules of 1958 have been made applicable to the employees of the respondent Bank vide Notification No.F.15(22) CDR/Bank/ 88/76 dated 3.1.1980 issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jaipur, purporting to act in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under r.41 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 1966 (herein after to be referred as 'the Rules of 1966' ). R.41 of the Rules of 1966 provides that the conditions of service of the employees of the Society shall be specified by the Registrar. R.8(2a) of the Rules of 1966 further lays down that the Society may make bye-laws for laying down the procedure to be followed in the disposal of the disciplinary cases against the employees.
(3.) THE petitioner has further contended that it is trite law that the specific provisions shall override the general provisions. According to him, in view of r.8(2a) of the Rules of 1966. r.41 of the Rules of 1966, which is general in application, cannot be applied. He has submitted that r.41 of the Rules of 1966 only provides for the conditions of the service of the employees of the Society. It does not relate to disciplinary proceedings and therefore, under r.41 of the Rules of 1966, the significant omission regarding the procedure for disposal of disciplinary cases leads to an irresistible conclusion that the rule making authority only wanted to confer the powers regarding laying down the conditions of service of the employees of the Society and not with regard to the procedure regulating the disciplinary proceedings against them.? The contention of the petitioner is that the Rules of 1966 have been framed under s. 148(2) (xxx) of the Act and in this clause also, the expressions 'conditions of the service' and 'disciplinary control' has been specifically omitted and, therefore, the Notification dated 3.1.1980 is ultra vires of the provisions of r.41 of the Rules of 1966. He has submitted that the disciplinary proceedings against the employees of the respondent Bank will have to be regulated as per the Resolution No.3 dated 8.8.1958 passed by the Board of Directors of the respondent Bank and, therefore, the Rules of 1958 cannot be made applicable. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of r.41 of the Rules of 1966 on the ground that the power to frame the Rules have been conferred on the State Govt. under s.148 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') and, therefore, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies could not have framed these Rules. A delegate cannot delegate further its powers. According to the petitioner, the provisions of r.41 of the Rules of 1966 confer unbriddled powers on the Registrar, Cooperative Societies without laying down the guidelines for the Registrar to specify the conditions of service and, therefore, these provisions are contrary to Arts. 14 and 16 of the Contsitulion. They also suffer from the vice of excessive delegation. ;