Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Krishna Muarai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
(2.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 04.08.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 03 of 2013, whereby, preliminary objection filed by the present petitioner has been rejected by the trial court.
(3.) Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the year 2009 when the respondent was posted as Zila Parishad Branch, he committed some omission and commission in transaction of various accounts of one society namely Shri Bachat and Sakh Swavalambi Sahkari Samiti, which was holding cash credit, consumer loan account etc., by irregular entry and thereby the Bank sustained loss of Rs.6.5 Lakhs. Consequently after preliminary fact finding, enquiry etc. coupled with audit report, the Management of the Bank passed an order simplicitor dated 30.03.2012 within the meaning of Rule 22(vii) of the Service Rule of the Cooperative Society, whereby, the respondent was directed to undo the loss by depositing firstly Rs.2.35 Lakhs. He further submits that the said amount was paid by the respondent by cheque. By way of referring Annexures-3 and 4, he submits that the respondent has accepted the fact that certain amount is due and that is why he has paid the amount in question, but at the same time he has requested not to proceed for recovery for further one year and if the rest amount in question is not deposited within the said period after realizing from the defaulter, rest of the amount may be deducted from his retiral dues. On these facts, Mr. Murari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that suit filed by the respondent is not maintainable in view of Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (hereinafter to be read to as 'the Act, 1935). He has placed reliance upon Sections 48 and 57 of the Act, 1935. By way of referring Section 57 of the Act, 1935, he submits that civil court's jurisdiction has been barred. By way of referring Section 48 of the Act, 1935, he submits that there are exceptions and in view of Section 48, suit can be maintainable if there is only disciplinary proceeding and in that view of the matter, there is no disciplinary proceeding against the respondent and the amount in question has been recovered by simplicitor order in view of Rule 22(vii) of the Service Rule . Thus, the civil court has got no jurisdiction to proceed with the suit and that is why petition for preliminary issue has been raised before the court below. He further submits that there is illegality in the impugned order and the trial court has not looked into exception under Section 48 of the Act, 1935 with regard to disciplinary proceeding, whereas, there was no disciplinary proceeding against the respondent and as per Sections 48 read with 57 of the Act, 1935, the trial court is not competent court to decide the lis, whereas, Registrar is competent to decide the lis under Section 48 of the Act. 1935. To buttress his argument, he relied upon the judgment rendered by the Patna High Court in the case of Bihar Co-operative Bank Employees Union v. Ranchi-khunti Central Co-operative Bank Limited, 2000 4 PLJR 179. By way of referring this judgment, he submits that law is well settled and in view of the said provisions under Sections 48 read with 57, suit is not maintainable and that is why the impugned order is illegal, which requires interference of this Court.;