Komal Prasad Basene vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 20596 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Komal Prasad Basene vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 December, 2023

Author: Sujoy Paul

Bench: Sujoy Paul

                                                       1
                           IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                              AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                                JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                                          ON THE 6 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                           WRIT PETITION No. 7088 of 2021

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    KOMAL PRASAD BASENE, AGED ABOUT 52
                                YEAR S , S/O SHRI BHANDARI LALA BASENE,
                                OCCUPATION: ASST. CLERK IN SEVA SAHKARI
                                SAMITI MYDT. JAM DISTT. BALAGHAT VILLAGE
                                JAM, TEHSIL LALBARRA, DISTT. BALAGHAT
                                (MADHYA PRADESH).

                          2.    ROOP LAL NAGPURE, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O
                                GANESH PRASAD NAGPURE, OCCUPATION: PEON
                                IN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MYDT. JAM
                                DISTT.BALAGHAT     VILLAGE   JAM   TEHSIL
                                LALBARRA    DISTT.    BALAGHAT   (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          3.    RAJKUMAR KAVRE, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O
                                PARAT LAL KAVRE, OCCUPATION: CHAUKIDAR
                                IN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MYDT. JAM DISTT.
                                BALAGHAT VILLAGE JAM, TEHSIL LALBARRA
                                DISTT. BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    GANESH PRASAD CHOUHAN, AGED ABOUT 49
                                YEARS, S/O MEGHRAJ CHOUHAN, OCCUPATION:
                                CLERK IN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MYDT. JAM
                                DISTT. BALAGHAT VILLAGE JAM TEHSIL
                                LALBARRA    DISTT.  BALAGHAT   (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                             .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI ANIL LALA - ADVOCATE )

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                THE SECRETARY CO OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT
                                MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    DEPUTY REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
                                DISTT. BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 12/7/2023
5:11:38 PM
                                                              2

                          3.    SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MYDT. JAM, DISTRICT
                                BALAGHAT, (M.P.), THROUGH MANAGER.

                          4.    ADMINISTRATOR, SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI
                                M Y D T . JAM, DISTT. BALAGHAT (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI RITWEEK PARASHAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
                          (BY SHRI PRAVESH NAVERIYA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS. 3 &
                          4)

                                This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                              ORDER

I.A. No.8649 of 2023 seeking exemption from payment of cost is taken

up and in absence of opposition by Shri Anil Lala, learned counsel for the petitioners, it is allowed.

With the consent, finally heard.

2. The petitioners, who are working as Accountants, Assistants Clerks and Choukidars are aggrieved by the similar orders passed by the Administrator and communicated by Manager. One such order dated 28.3.2018 (Annexure P-1) shows that pursuant to a decision by Administrator, the Manager has decided to terminate the services of the petitioners. This order is called in question on twin grounds :-

(a) As per the Rule 27 of the Services Rules filed by the respondent nos.

3 and 4, the competent authority to terminate the services of Accountants is Board of Directors, whereas for remaining petitioners it is Manager. The Manager is very much available, which is clear from the impugned order dated 28.3.2018 (Annexure P-1), which is communicated by Manager and, therefore, the impugned order is passed by an incompetent authority. In that

event, in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others-(1998) 8

SCC-1}, the petitioners may not be relegated to avail the alternative remedy.

(b) As per Rule 28 of the said rules, punishment can be imposed only after holding an enquiry and in the instant case without holding any enquiry punishment is passed.

3. Shri Ritweek Parashar, learned Govenrment Advocate for the State and Shri Pravesh Naveriya, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 supported the impugned order but could not substantiate that decision to terminate the petitioners was taken after holding enquiry and by competent authority, i.e. the Manager. Instead, impugned order dated 28.3.2018 (Annexure P-1) is only communicated by the Manager, whereas decision is taken by the Administrator. There is no material on record to show whether any fulfledged enquiry as contemplated in the Rules was conducted.

4. Accordingly, all the impugned orders are set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.

5. The petition is disposed of.

(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE bks