Karnataka High Court
Shri. Sunil S/O Biliya Naik vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 March, 2022
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav, K.S.Hemalekha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
W.A. No. 100280/2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. SUNIL S/O BILLYA NAIK,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT &
DIRECTOR, THE BHATKAL AGRICULTURAL &
RURAL DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
BHATKAL, PIN-581 320, TQ: BHATKAL,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA, R/O PHC ROAD,
SIRALLI, TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
2. SHRI. NAVNITH S/O GANESH NAIK,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: DIRECTOR,
THE BHATKAL AGRICULTURAL &
RURAL DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
BHATKAL, PIN-581 320, TQ: BHATKAL,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA, R/O GARADIKAR MANE,
MUNDALLI, TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
3. SHRI. ISHWAR S/O NARAYAN NAIK,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: DIRECTOR,
THE BHATKAL AGRICULTURAL &
RURAL DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
BHATKAL, PIN-581 320, TQ: BHATKAL,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA, R/O MALAYYANAMANE,
MAVALLI-1, TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
4. SHRI. SANTOSH S/O MADEV NAIK,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: DIRECTOR,
THE BHATKAL AGRICULTURAL &
RURAL DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
BHATKAL, PIN-581 320, TQ: BHATKAL,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA, R/O NEAR KANNADA SCHOOL,
2
MAVALLI-1, TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
5. SHRI. MANJAPPA S/O MADEV NAIK,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: DIRECTOR,
THE BHATKAL AGRICULTURAL &
RURAL DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
BHATKAL, PIN-581 320, TQ: BHATKAL,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA, R/O PUTTANAMANE,
GUDIGARBOLE, MAVALLI-1, TQ: BHATKAL,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
6. SMT. GAYATHRI VIJAYKUMAR NAIK,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: VIDE PRESIDENT & DIRECTOR,
THE BHATKAL AGRICULTURAL &
RURAL DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
BHATKAL, PIN-581 320, TQ: BHATKAL,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA, R/O GUBBIMANE, DODDABALLE,
BAILUR, TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
7. SMT. KAMALA RAMACHANDRA NAIK,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: DIRECTOR,
THE BHATKAL AGRICULTURAL &
RURAL DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
BHATKAL, PIN-581 320, TQ: BHATKAL,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA, R/O SHRINIVAS NILAYA,
PORT ROAD, 6TH CROSS, HANUMAN NAGAR, BHATKAL,
TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
8. SHRI. NAGAYYA MASTI GOND,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: DIRECTOR,
THE BHATKAL AGRICULTURAL &
RURAL DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
BHATKAL, PIN-581 320, TQ: BHATKAL,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA, R/O HOUSE NO. 129,
BADINAMANE, HADLUR, PIN-581 320
TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
9. SHRI MANJU S/O MANJU MOGER,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: DIRECTOR,
THE BHATKAL AGRICULTURAL &
RURAL DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
BHATKAL, PIN-581 320, TQ: BHATKAL,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA, R/O SODIGADDI HITLU,
SODIGADDE, TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
10. SHRI. IRAPPA S/O MANJAPPA NAIK,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: DIRECTOR,
3
THE BHATKAL AGRICULTURAL &
RURAL DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
BHATKAL, PIN-581 320, TQ: BHATKAL,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA, R/O PURAVARGA,
YALAVADIKUR, SARPANAKATTE,
TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
11. SHRI. HARISH S/O VENKATESH NAIK,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: DIRECTOR,
THE BHATKAL AGRICULTURAL &
RURAL DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
BHATKAL, PIN-581 320, TQ: BHATKAL,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA, R/O RAGHUNATH ROAD,
MANKULI, TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
12. SHRI. ISHWAR S/O MANJUNATH NAIK,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: DIRECTOR,
THE BHATKAL AGRICULTURAL &
RURAL DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
BHATKAL, PIN-581 320, TQ: BHATKAL,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA, R/O PADMYANAMANE,
MAVALLI-1, TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
13. SHRI. MOHAN S/O KORAGAPPA NAIK,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: DIRECTOR,
THE BHATKAL AGRICULTURAL &
RURAL DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
BHATKAL, PIN-581 320, TQ: BHATKAL,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA, R/O YALMUDIMANE,
SARPANAKATTE, HADIN, TQ: BHATKAL,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
14. SHRI. SURESH S/O JATTAYYA NAIK,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: DIRECTOR,
THE BHATKAL AGRICULTURAL &
RURAL DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
BHATKAL, PIN-581 320, TQ: BHATKAL,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA, R/O DURGANAYAKARAMANE,
PURAVARGA, YALVADIKUR, TQ: BHATKAL,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
- APPELLANTS
(BY SRI A.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE
4
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,
VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES, NO. 1, ALI ASKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA STATE AGRICULTURAL &
RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.,
(KSARD), BENGALURU-560 001.
4. THE JOING REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES (JRCS), BELAGAVI REGION,
SAHAKAR BHAVAN, GOA VASE, BELAGAVI-590 001.
5. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, SARASWATI SADAN,
2ND FLOOR, HABBUWADA, KARWAD, PIN-581 301,
DIST: UTTAR KANADA.
6. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
KUMTA SUB-DIVISION, PIN-581 343,
KUMTA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
7. THE CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT
OFFICER, BESIDE GURU KRUPA CREDIT
SOCIETY BUILDING, MANKULL, BHATKAL
PIN-581 320, TQ: BHATKAL,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
8. THE BHATKAL AGRICULTURAL & RURAL
DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
(BARDCB), BHATKAL, PIN-581 320,
TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.
9. SHRI. SHANKAR S/O RAMAKRISHNA NAIK,
AGE: YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BATTUR VILAGE, POST: SHIRALLI,
PIN-581 320, TQ: BHATKAL,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.K. HIREGOUDAR, AGA FOR R1, R2, R4 TO R6,
SRI NAGENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR C/R9,
NOTICE TO R3, 7 AND 8 IS DIEPSNED WITH)
5
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED
21.10.2021 IN W.P. NO. 101955/2021 & ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appeal has been filed by the President and
Director of Bhaktal Agricultural and Rural Development Co-
Operative Bank Limited, aggrieved by the order of the
learned single Judge dated 21.10.2021, whereby the
petition came to be dismissed with certain observations
upholding the order of the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative
Society as well as the order of the Assistant Registrar of
Co-Operative Society whereby orders were passed
proposing to initiate proceedings for disqualification of the
appellants herein.
2. Parties are referred to by their rank in the writ
proceedings for the purpose of convenience.
3. The facts that were made out was that Bhaktal
Agricultural and Rural Development Co-Operative Bank
Limited, had sought regularization of services of 24
employees who were working on contract basis and has
also taken recourse to outsource of services of 18 posts
despite withdrawal of the permission granted for
outsourcing.
4. It is not in dispute that the permission for
regularization had been granted subject to certain
conditions as per the order at annexure 'D' dated
24.01.2018. The sanction accorded for regularization by
the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Society as per the
order dated 24.01.2018 reads as follows;
-:DzÉñÀ:-
¸ÀASÉå:Dgï¹J¸ï/J¯ïr©-2/47/2017-18 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 24.01.2018
¸ÀºPÀ ÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀU¼
À À ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1960 ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 17 (1)gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ
C¢üPÁgÀª£
À ÀÄß ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸ÀÄvÁÛ ²æêÀÄw PÉ.JA. D±Á, ¸ÀºPÀ ÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀU¼
À À C¥ÀgÀ
¤§AzsPÀ g
À ÀÄ, ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ PÀȶ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÁæ«ÄÃuÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¨ÁåAQ£À oÉêÀt ¸ÀAUÀº
æ u
É É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
PÀȶAiÉÄÃvÀgÀ «¨sÁUÀPÉÌ F PɼPÀ A
À qÀ 26 ««zsÀ ºÀÄzÉÝU¼
À À ªÀÈAzÀ§® ºÁUÀÆ ªÉÃvÀ£À
±ÉÃæ tÂAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PɼÀPA
À qÀ µÀgw
À ÛUÉ M¼À¥ÀlÄÖ ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁr DzÉò¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
PÀ.æ ¸ÀA. ºÀÄzÉÝU¼
À À «ªÀgÀ ¸ÀASÉå ªÉÃvÀ£À ±ÉÃæ tÂ
1 »jAiÀÄ ±ÁSÁ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥PÀ g
À ÀÄ 05 17650-32000
2 QjAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ/UÀtàQPÀgt
À UÁgÀgÀÄ 18 12500-24000
3 ªÁZÀªÀÄ£ï 02 9600-14550
4 ¹éÃ¥Àgï 01 9600-14550
µÀgv
À ÀÄÛU¼
À ÀÄ:-
1. ªÉÄîÌAqÀAvÉ ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ 26 ºÀÄzÉÝU¼ À À ¥ÉÊQ 5 »jAiÀÄ ±ÁSÁ
ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥PÀ g À À ºÀÄzÉÝU¼ À £
À ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹ G½zÀ 21 ºÀÄzÉÝU¼ À £
À ÀÄß ¸ÀºPÀ ÁgÀ
¸ÀAWÀU¼ À À ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1960 ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 17 ºÁUÀÆ 18gÀ°è EgÀĪÀAvÉ ¨sw À ð
ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀîvPÀ ÀÌzÀÄÝ.
2. £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¥ÀQæ A æ iÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß eÁjUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ ªÀÄÄ£Àß ¸Àz¸ À Àå PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð,
¦PÁqïð ¨ÁåAPÀU¼ À À ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ±ÉÃæ t ¸À«Äw ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, gÀªj À AzÀ
C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¥ÀqA É iÀÄvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
3. ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ªÀÈAzÀ§® ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÃvÀ£À ±ÉÃæ t F DzÉñÀ
ºÉÆgÀr¹zÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ ªÀÄÄA¢£À 05 ªÀµð À UÀ¼ª
À g À U É É
ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀg¸ É v
À ÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. F CªÀ¢A ü iÉƼÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀjµÀÌgu À É ªÀiÁqÀvPÀ ÀÌzÀÝ®è.
4. AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÁgÀtPÀÆÌ ¨ÁåAQ£À zÀÄrAiÀĪÀ §AqÀªÁ¼ÀPÌÉ ¹§âA¢ ªÉZª ÀÑ ÀÅ
±ÉÃPÀqÀ 2£ÀÄß «ÄÃgÀvPÀ ÀÌzÀÝ®è.
5. ¨ÁåAQ£À ¹§âA¢ £ÉêÀÄPÁwUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
PÀqÁØAiÀĪÁV gÀa¹PÉƼÀîvPÀ ÀÌzÀÄÝ, ºÁUÀÆ ¸À«ÄwUÉ ¸ÀºPÀ ÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀU¼ À À
¤§AzsPÀ g À À ¥Àgª À ÁV ¥Àw æ ¤¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉëĹPÉƼÀî®Ä ¥Àv æ ÉåÃPÀªÁV C£ÀĪÀÄw
¥ÀqAÉ iÀÄvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
(PÉ.JA.D±Á)
¸ÀºPÀ ÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀU¼ À À C¥ÀgÀ ¤§AzsPÀ g
À ÀÄ,
¥ÀvÀÄÛ
CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ/¥Àz
æ sÁ£À ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥PÀ g
À ÀÄ, ¨sÀl̼À ¥Áæx«
À ÄPÀ ¸ÀºPÀ ÁgÀ
PÀȶ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÁæ«ÄÃt©üªÀÈ¢Ý ¨ÁåAPÀ ¤., ¨sÀl̼À
GvÀÛgÀ PÀ£ÀßqÀ f¯Éè, PÁgÀªÁgÀ.
5. However, as the authority by their orders had
proposed to initiate proceedings for disqualification under
section 29C and subsequently proceedings have been
initiated, the same came to be challenged before the Joint
Registrar of Co-operative Society by filing an appeal.
Appeal came to be dismissed upholding the order of the
Assistant Registrar. The orders of the Assistant Registrar
as well as the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Society came
to be challenged before learned Single Judge raising
contentions as referred above.
6. It is not in dispute that the condition No.1 and 4 of
the order dated 24.01.2018 are to be adhered to. It is the
further case of the petitioner that despite having made
several requests for granting of approval for regularization
to the 3rd respondent, the respondent No.3 did not take
any action and due to administrative exigencies they were
constrained to regularize services of the employees and
such regularization was also subject to the approval to be
granted by the 3rd respondent.
7. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition
while observing that the non-taking of approval from the
3rd respondent was an act of impropriety as the effect of
regularization of 24 employees would have serious
consequences on the fate of the said employees, if
respondent No.3 chose to refuse approval for their
regularization.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
action for disqualification is extreme and is contrary to
equity of circumstances that compelled the authorities to
go ahead with the regularization despite approval from
the 3rd respondent not having been granted. It was pointed
out that several efforts for obtaining sanction from the 3rd
respondent were in vain. In light of such circumstances
action was taken and there was no malafide intent and it
was a genuine administrative defect which compelled the
authorities to resort to regularize the services.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to
dispute the requirement of sanction by the 3rd respondent.
Further it is clear from the very order dated 24.01.2018 for
regularization that action could be taken for regularization
subject to the conditions No.1 and 4 which is extracted
above. It is also not in dispute that the action of
regularization would be contrary to Rule 17 and 18.
10. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the
respondent No.9 Sri.Nagendra Naik, that this aspect of
requirement of approval by the 3rd respondent was brought
to the notice of the petitioners as is recorded in the
resolution dated 05.10.2018. The extract of the said
proceedings is as follows:
"¨ÁåAQ£À ¥Àz
æ Ás £À ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥PÀ g
À ÀÄ ¸À¨A
És iÀÄ£ÀÄß GzÉÝò¹ £ÀªÀÄä "¨ÁåAQ£À
ºÉZÀĪ
Ñ j
À ¹§âA¢ ªÀÈAzÀ §® ºÁUÀÆ ªÉÃvÀ£À ±ÉÃæ tÂAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ
ªÀiÁqÀĪÁUÀ ¸ÀºPÀ ÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀU¼
À À ¤AiÀĪÀĪÀ½ 1960 gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 17 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 18
gÀ°ègÀĪÀAvÉ ¨sw
À ð ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀîvPÀ ÀÌzA
É zÀÄ EgÀĪÀ µÀgÀwÛ£A
À vÉ ¸Àz¸
À ÀågÀÄ PÀª
æ ÄÀ
dgÀÄV¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÁVgÀÄvÀÛz.É C®èzÃÉ ªÀÄAdÆj µÀgw
À Û £A
À vÉ ¸Àz¸
À åÀ
PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð ¦PÁqÀð ¨ÁåAPï ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ±ÉÃæ t ¸À«Äw (¹¹¹) ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄgÀªÀgÀ
C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¥ÀqA
É iÀĨÉÃPÀÄ CAvÁ EzÀÄÝ, ¸Àzg
À À C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É
¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è C®èzÃÉ F ºÉZÀĪ
Ñ Àj ¹§âA¢UÀ¼À ªÉÃvÀ£À ¤UÀ¢UÉƽ¹
SÁAiÀÄA ªÉÃvÀ£À ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¹§âA¢ ªÉZÀѪÀÅ ¥Àæw±ÀvÀ 2% gÀµÄÀ Ö
«ÄÃjgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄAdÆj µÀgw
À Û£À ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¸À«Äw ªÀUÊÉ gÉ
£ÉëĹPÉƼÀîzÃÉ PÉêÀ® oÀgÁ«£À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° ¹§âA¢UÀ¼£
À ÀÄß SÁAiÀÄA
ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå ¤§AzsPÀ ÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºPÀ ÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀU¼
À ÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀªg
À À
DzÉñÀª£
À ÀÄß ¸ÀàµÀÖªÁV G®èAX¹zÀAvÁUÀÄvÀÛz.É F jÃw E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀAWÀU¼
À ÀÄ
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀgÀªg
À À DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀàµÀÖªÁV G®èAX¹zÀAvÁUÀÄvÀÛz.É F jÃw
E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ DzÉñÀª£
À ÀÄß ¥Á°¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ°AiÀÄ ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð
dªÁ¨ÁÝjAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛz.É
¸Àzj
À £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¥ÀQæ A
æ iÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß dgÀÄV¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ
¨Á»gÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzA
É zÀÄ ¥ÀæzsÁ£À ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥PÀ g
À ÀÄ ¸À¨ÉsUÉ vÀªÀÄä C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ
vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀQæ A
æ iÉÄUÉ vÀªÀÄä C¸ÀªÀÄäwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀåPÀÛ¥r
À ¹zÀgÀÄ. F ¥ÀQæ A
æ iÉĬÄAzÀ
GAmÁUÀĪÀ ªÀÄÄA¢£À J¯Áè PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀª
æ ÀÄUÀ½UÉ DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ°AiÀÄÄ
¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð dªÁ¨ÁÝjAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉAiÉÄAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄä C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ªÀÄAr¹zÀgÄÀ .
»ÃVzÀÝgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ°AiÀÄÄ ¸Àzj
À oÀgÁªÀŪÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀªÁð£ÀĪÀÄvÀ¢AzÀ
CAVÃPÀj¹zÉ.
11. Taking note of the said submission of learned
counsel for the respondent, the factum of non taking
sanction from respondent No3 being admitted, we find no
reasons to interfere with the order of the learned single
judge. The justification and compelling circumstance that
may have lead to regularization of the employees are
matters that cannot be entertained so as to obviate the
adherence to Rule 17 and 18 of the Karnataka Co-
operative Society Rules, 1960.
12. The fact that the absorption and regularization has
been made contrary to the condition stipulated on
24.01.2018 which would have the effect of contravention
of Rule 17 and 18 not being in dispute, the proceedings
initiated against the petitioners cannot be interfered with.
13. Learned single Judge has in fact taken note of
interest of the employees who were absorbed also as is
evident from the observation at para 8 of the order. No
grounds are made out for interference with the order of
the learned single Judge. However it is open for the
petitioners to place material before the authorities in the
proceedings under 29C if the 3rd respondent were to grant
approval of the regularization, if such fact would support
their stands against disqualification.
Needless to state that the respondent No.3 is to
independently consider granting of sanction if otherwise
permissible under law uninfluenced by the present
proceedings that have been initiated as against the office
bearers of the Society. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed
off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
AC/bvv
