A. B. PAL, J.- - (1.)The petitioner was appointed as Manager of Pally Mangal Prathamik Krishi Samabay Samity Ltd (for short, 'Samity'), a Co-operative Society registered under the Tripura Co-operative Societies Act, 1974 (for short, 'Act') by the President of the said Samity on a fixed monthly pay of Rs. 175/- following which he joined the post on 10.08.79. The appointment of the petitioner had the approval of the Government of Tripura which was indicated to the said Samity by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (respondent No. 1) by letter dated 24.07.79. Since 10.08.79 when he joined the post, the petitioner served the Samity uninterruptedly for a period of 16 years whereafter due to certain ailments, he had applied to the President of the Samity for leave from 05.09.96 to 30.09.96. The said leave application was not acted upon and, therefore, on 23.09.96, the petitioner submitted another application whereafter the President (respondent No. 2) on the body of the said application sanctioned leave till 20.11.96. But on 05.11.96, the said President issued a show cause notice to the petitioner to explain his long absence without permission and without handing over charge to any other employee, thereby causing disruption in the functioning of the consumer shop of the said Samity. On 07.11.96, the petitioner submitted his reply stating that he was absent on the ground of illness after submitting leave application and, therefore, the charge of unauthorized absence was not correct. He also pointed out that his prayer for leave was sanctioned by the President himself on his application dated 23.09.96 which fact would establish that the charge of unauthorized absence was baseless. Though the period of sanctioned leave was till 20.11.96, the petitioner resumed duties on 18.11.96 and submitted joining report. But on 19.11.96, the petitioner was informed that the said Samity by a resolution dated 19.11.96 dismissed the petitioner from the service of the said Samity with immediate effect. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the correctness and the legality of the said order of dismissal.
(2.)Though the Registrar of the Co-operative Society, the Samity and the five members thereof have been arrayed as respondents, only the Registrar, by filing a counter affidavit, advanced his contention admitting that the dismissal of the petitioner by the Samity was done without observing legal formalities. The Registrar himself asked the Samity to re-instate the petitioner by several correspondences, but the same was not complied with. Though it has been admitted that the Registrar accorded approval of the selection of the petitioner, the actual appointment was issued by the President of the Samity who is the ultimate authority with regard to the appointment and other matters of the persons employed in connection with the affairs of the Samity. Thus, the order of dismissal of the petitioner by the Samity has not found support from the first respondent. Though the other respondents including the Samity were duly served and they entered appearance through their counsel as indicated by the office notes, but none of them filed any counter affidavit.
(3.)I have heard Mr. B. Das, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. P. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. D. Majumder and Mr. P. Deb Roy, learned counsel for the respondents.