Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Fazale Rashid vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:39777) on 8 September, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:39777]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10575/2025

Fazale Rashid S/o Shri Mohammed Sagir, Aged About 44 Years,
Resident Of Street No. 1, Noor Colony, Nimbahera, Tehsil
Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.         State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cooperative
           Department Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.         The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
           Nehru Sahkar Bhawan, Jaipur.
3.         The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Govt. Of
           Rajasthan, Chittorgarh.
4.         The    Chittorgarh     Central       Cooperative          Bank      Limited,
           Through Its Managing Director, Chittorgarh.
5.         The    Bangreda,     Gram       Seva      Sahkari        Samiti     Limited,
           Through    Its   Chairman,         Bangreda,            Panchayat    Samiti
           Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh.
                                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Samir Shrimali
                                  Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha
                                  Mr. Gaurav Ranka for
                                  Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari



                 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

08/09/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following

prayers:

"a) By an appropriate Writ, order or directions the order dated 13.12.2024 (Annex-7) and consequential notice dated 06.03.2025 (annexure-8), may kindly be quashed and set aside;

(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 07:44:19 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:39777] (2 of 8) [CW-10575/2025]

b) Any other order or direction, which the Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper be passed in favour of the petitioner;

c) Costs of this petition may kindly be allowed to the petitioner;"

2. The facts are that the petitioner, who is working as

Vyavasthapak (Manager) with respondent No.5-Society, was

subjected to inquiry in terms of Section 55 of Rajasthan

Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act

of 2001'). The inquiry officer submitted his report dated

09.12.2024 to the competent authority. The inquiry officer

recommended for an inquiry to be held in terms of Section 57 of

the Act of 2001.

3. The competent authority i.e. the Sub-Registrar, vide order

dated 13.12.2024 appointed the inquiry officer who in turn served

a notice dated 23.12.2024 on the petitioner calling upon him to

file his defence and the documents in support thereof qua the

charges as reflected in the said notice.

4. The inquiry officer, after concluding the inquiry, submitted his

inquiry report to the competent authority who in terms of Section

57(2) read with Rule 75 (2) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Society

Rules, 2003, called upon the petitioner to file his reply with the

supporting documents qua the charges as reflected in the notice

dated 06.03.2025.

5. Aggrieved of the above, the present writ petition has been

filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following two

grounds:

(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 07:44:19 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:39777] (3 of 8) [CW-10575/2025]

Firstly, the enquiry report as referred to in notice dated

06.03.2025 (Annexure-8), was never served on the petitioner

which is against the principles of natural justice. In absence of

such report being served, the petitioner is not in a position to file

his reply/defense.

Secondly, the notice issued in terms of Section 57 (1) of the

Act of 2001 itself was not valid as any enquiry in terms of the said

provision could not have been initiated after expiry of six years

from the date of act or omission whereas admittedly, the charges

as leveled against the petitioner pertain to the period more than

six years ago.

7. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent-State submits

that there is no provision mandating the service of copy of the

enquiry report on the delinquent. The only requirement in terms of

Section 57 (2) of the Act of 2001 is of affording an opportunity of

representation, after the enquiry report in terms of Section 57 (2)

of the Act of 2001 been received by the Registrar. Notice dated

06.03.2025 is definitely in terms of Section 57 (2) of the Act of

2001.

8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 Co-operative

Bank submits that the petitioner has acted in a malafide manner,

as on the one hand, he has already participated in the proceedings

initiated vide notice dated 06.03.2025 and on the other hand, he

has filed the present petition challenging the said notice.

9. Learned counsel submits that even otherwise the petitioner

would be at liberty to file his defense, whatsoever, in the

proceedings now initiated.

(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 07:44:19 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:39777] (4 of 8) [CW-10575/2025]

10. Additionally, learned counsel made a specific averment that

the petitioner has placed a forged document on record of the

present petition. He submits that Annexure 16, the document

annexed along with the rejoinder as filed by the petitioner, is a

forged document as the alleged Issuing Authority of said letter

dated 09.08.2021 was not even the Authority holding the office on

the said date as he was under suspension.

11. Vide an additional affidavit filed on behalf of respondent-

Bank, communication dated 12.08.2025 issued by the Sub-

Registrar Co-operative Societies, Chittorgarh has been placed on

record to the effect that the Officer who allegedly issued

communication dated 09.08.2021 (Annexure-16) was under

suspension during the said period. Learned counsel therefore

submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief by this

Court, he having filed a forged document on record.

12. Heard the counsels and perused the record.

13. So far as the ground raised by learned counsel for the

petitioner regarding the validity of the enquiry been held in terms

of Section 55 (1) of the Act of 2001 is concerned, this Court is of

the clear opinion that Section 55 of the Act of 2001 specifically

empowers the Registrar to hold an enquiry either by himself or by

a person authorized by him.

14. Further, Section 57 (1) of the Act of 2001 specifically

empowers the Registrar to enquire into the conduct of a person

either by himself or by any person authorized by him where a

person concerned is alleged to have committed any act as

reflected in the said provision.

(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 07:44:19 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:39777] (5 of 8) [CW-10575/2025]

15. A bare perusal of the charges as leveled against the

petitioner reflects that the same definitely fall within the purview

of Section 57 (1) of the Act of 2001. The Registrar was therefore,

well empowered to conduct an enquiry qua the allegations as

leveled against the petitioner.

16. Coming on to the second ground, true it is that no provision

of the Act of 2001 prescribes for serving a copy of the enquiry

report on the delinquent. But then, as is the settled position of

law, each employee is entitled to be served with a copy of a report

which admittedly goes against him. In absence of such report, the

delinquent definitely would not be in a position to defend himself

effectively. In Union of India and Others vs. Mohd. Ramzan

Khan; (1991) 1 SCC 588, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while laying

down the said ratio, held as under:-

"17. There have been several There have been several decisions in different High Courts which, following the Forty-Second Amendment, have taken the view that it is no longer necessary to furnish a copy of the inquiry report to delinquent officers. Even on some occasions this Court has taken that view. Since we have reached a different conclusion the judgments in the different High Courts taking the contrary view must be taken to be no longer laying down good law. We have not been shown any decision of a coordinate or a larger bench of this Court taking this view. Therefore, the conclusion to the contrary reached by any two-Judge bench in this Court will also no longer be taken to be laying down good law, but this shall have prospective application and no punishment imposed shall be open to challenge on this ground.

(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 07:44:19 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:39777] (6 of 8) [CW-10575/2025]

18. We make it clear that wherever there has been an Inquiry Officer and he has furnished a report to the disciplinary authority at the conclusion of the inquiry holding the delinquent guilty of all or any of the charges with proposal for any particular punishment or not, the delinquent is entitled to a copy of such report and will also be entitled to make a representation against it, if he so desires, and non-furnishing of the report would amount to violation of rules of natural justice and make the final order liable to challenge hereafter."

The above view was reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in

another case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and

Others vs. B. Karunakar and Others; 4 SCC 727 wherein the

Court has held:

"57. The findings or recommended punishment by the enquiry officer are likely to affect the mind of the disciplinary authority in his concluding the guilt or penalty to be imposed. The delinquent is, therefore, entitled to meet the reasoning, controvert the conclusions reached by the enquiry officer or is entitled to explain the effect of the evidence recorded. Unless the copy of the report is supplied to him, he would be in dark to know the findings, the reasons in support thereof or nature of the recommendation on penalty. He would point out all the factual or legal errors committed by the enquiry officer. He may also persuade the disciplinary authority that the finding is based on no evidence or the relevant material evidence was not considered or overlooked by the enquiry officer in coming to the conclusions, with a view to persuade the disciplinary authority to disagree with the enquiry officer and to consider his innocence of the charge, or even

(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 07:44:19 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:39777] (7 of 8) [CW-10575/2025]

that the guilt as to the misconduct has not been established on the evidence on records or disabuse the initial impression formed in the minds of the disciplinary authority on consideration of the enquiry report. Even if the disciplinary authority comes to the conclusion that charge or charges is/are proved, the case may not warrant imposition of any, penalty. He may plead mitigating or extenuating circumstances to impose no punishment or a lesser punishment. For this purpose the delinquent needs reasonable opportunity or fair play in action. The supply of the copy of the report is neither an empty formality, nor a ritual, but aims to digress the direction of the disciplinary authority from his derivative conclusions from the report to the palliative path of fair consideration. The denial of the supply of the copy, therefore, causes to the delinquent a grave prejudice and avoidable injustice which cannot be cured or mitigated in appeal or at a challenge under Art. 226 of the Constitution or S. 19 of the Tribunal Act or other relevant provisions. Ex post facto opportunity does not efface the past impression formed by the disciplinary authority against the delinquent, however, professedly to be fair to the delinquent. The lurking suspicion always lingers in the mind of the delinquent that the disciplinary authority was not objective and he was treated unfairly. To alleviate such an impression and to prevent injustice or miscarriage of justice at the threshold, the disciplinary authority should supply the copy of the report, consider objectively the records, the evidence, the report and the explanation offered by the delinquent and make up his mind on proof of the charge or the nature of the penalty. The supply of the copy of the report is thus, a sine qua non for a valid, fair, just and proper procedure to defend the delinquent himself effectively and efficaciously. The denial thereof is

(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 07:44:19 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:39777] (8 of 8) [CW-10575/2025]

offending not only Art. 311(2) but also violates Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution."

17. As is admitted, the petitioner has already filed his

representation before the Registrar and has already prayed for

supplying of the enquiry report.

18. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to supply

a copy of the enquiry report as conducted in terms of Section 57

(1) of the Act of 2001 to the petitioner, within a period of two

weeks from now. On the said enquiry report been served, the

petitioner would be under an obligation to submit his

reply/representation within a period of two weeks thereafter. The

petitioner would not be entitled for any further time thereafter.

19. So far as filing of alleged forged document dated 09.08.2021

(Annexure-16) is concerned, the Registrar would be at liberty to