Govind Mathur, J. - (1.) Under a charge sheet dated 14.7.2008 the petitioner, a Vyavasthapak, Sainani Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Sainani, was subjected to disciplinary action as per the provisions of Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society/Large Agriculture Multi Purpose Cooperative Societies Managers' (Selection & Appointment) Service Conditions, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the Conditions of 2003"). The President, Sainani Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Sainani, by an order dated 8.8.2008, holding the petitioner guilty for the charges levelled under the charge sheet dated 14.7.2008, dismissed him from service. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred.
(2.) It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned dated 8.8.2008 deserves to be quashed being wholly without jurisdiction. It is asserted that as per condition No.34 of the Conditions of 2003 the disciplinary authority of the petitioner is Sanchalak Mandal of the Cooperative Society and no major penalty could be imposed on a Vyavasthapak unless the procedure prescribed under condition No.35(?) is adhered. According to the provision aforesaid to inquire the allegations relating to serious misconduct, an inquiry committee consisting of Technical Assistant and Assistant Executive Officer or Branch Secretary of the Bank concerned is required to be constituted. The inquiry committee so constituted is required to first conduct a preliminary inquiry and if the committee is satisfied prima facie regarding commission of misconduct then a regular inquiry is required to be conducted. A major penalty such as of dismissal from service could be imposed only after holding regular inquiry by the inquiry committee constituted as per the provisions of Condition No.35(?)(2) of the Conditions of 2003. According to counsel for the petitioner in the instant matter no such inquiry committee was constituted and no inquiry at all was conducted before imposing a major punishment of dismissal from service.
(3.) On the other hand, the stance taken by the respondents is that this Court should not entertain this petition for writ as the petitioner is having an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal as per the Condition No.37 of the Conditions of 2003. It is also asserted that there is no violation of principles of natural justice or any of the conditions prescribed in Conditions of 2003. According to the respondents a notice to show cause was given to the petitioner but he did not choose to respond the same, therefore, a presumption of accepting guilt was drawn and adequate penalty was imposed by the President of the Cooperative Society. Counsel for the respondents also pointed out that the petitioner was subjected to the proceedings under Section 57(2) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2001") wherein he was held responsible to cause loss to the society and as such holding of an inquiry as per the provisions of the Condition No.35(?) of the Conditions of 2003 should have been nothing but a repetition of process of making probe.;