Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner Cooperative Society seeks to challenge validity, legality and propriety of the order dated 20.3.2001 passed by Cooperative Minister, State of Rajasthan in a revision preferred by the respondent No. 3 Mr. Mewa Singh (referred to hereinafter as 'the respondent').
(2.) FACTS in brief are that the respondent No. 3 was employed as a Manager in various Cooperative Societies under the administrative control of Ganganagar Central Cooperative Bank Limited (referred to hereinafter as 'the petitioner'). Reports of misconduct were received against the respondent on which two charge -sheets under Rule 17 of the Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Managers Service Rules, 1991 were served to him on 29.3.1994 and 21.5.1994 respectively. The respondent Manager was placed under suspension on 11.7.1994 and an enquiry was instituted against him under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1991. Enquiry Officer was appointed. The respondent was given a notice to submit his explanation by communication dated 19.7.1994. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and found the charges proved. The enquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority. On 18.8.1994 a show cause notice was issued to respondent Mewa Singh accompanied with a copy of the enquiry report. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the Executive Officer of the petitioner bank vide order Annexure -3 dated 8.10.1994 dismissed the respondent from service by exercising powers under Rule 17(1)(d) of the Rules of 1991. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 8.10.1994 dismissing him from service, the respondent preferred an appeal under Rule 18 of the Rules of 1991 long after the period of limitation had expired. When the appeal was not considered, the respondent preferred a writ petition being Civil Writ Petition No. 1489/1996 wherein this Court vide order dated 17.5.1996 directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits. The appeal preferred by the respondent was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 28.2.1997. Being dissatisfied, the respondent filed an application under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter in short the Act of 1965) before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies Act. The Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bikaner dismissed the said application by order dated 12.11.1999. The respondent employee thereafter preferred a revision to the State Government under Section 128 of the Act of 1965. The said revision was allowed by the Hon'ble State Minister, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur by order Annexure -7 dated 20.3.2001 and the impugned order passed by the petitioner bank dismissing the respondent from service was set aside and quashed and he was directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. The petitioner bank has approached this Court assailing the said order Annexure -7 dated 20.3.2001 passed by the Minister of State in exercise of the revisional powers by way of the instant writ petition. The principal ground of challenge raised by Mr. Rajesh Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner to the order under challenge is based on the judgment dated 12.9.2013 rendered by the coordinate bench in S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 1330/2002. On the strength of the above decision, it is contended that as this Court has held that exercise of powers by the Revisional Authority under Section 128 of the Act is impermissible in cases where the order is passed by the Managing Director or the Executive Officer of the Bank in the capacity of the Administrative Authority. Thus, it is contended that the impugned order cannot be upheld as being grossly illegal and without jurisdiction.
(3.) PER contra Mr. Moti Singh, counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel for the petitioner and contends that Hon'ble Minister, Cooperative Department rightly and justly exercised the revisional powers vested in the State under Section 128 of the Act of 1965 and appropriately quashed the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the respondent employee by the Disciplinary Authority as the same was bad in the eye of law. He, therefore, prays that no inference is called for in the impugned order and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.;