1 WPS No. 385 of 2020 CGHC010006262020 2026:CGHC:32237 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 385 of 2020  Ishwardas Vaishanav S/o Late Baldaudas Vaishnav, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Post Maro, Tehsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department of Cooperation, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Registrar Co-Operative Societies Chhattisgarh, Block- 3, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Deputy Registrar Co-Operatives Societies Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 4. Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Maro Registration No. 1323, Through The President / Board Of Directors, Block Navagarh, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner :- Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate. For State/Respondents No.1 to 3 :- Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.4. :- Mr. Abhinav Tiwari, Advocate, appears on behalf of Mr. Manish Upadhyay, Advocate. ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH 2 WPS No. 385 of 2020 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 28.07.2026 1. The petitioner was working with Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Maro (for brevity “Samiti”)/ respondent No.4 herein. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operatives Societies, Bemetara, by order dated 27.12.2019 directed the said Samiti / respondent No.4 herein to terminate the petitioner’s services in light of Clause 16.5 of the Service Rules and accordingly, respondent No.4 terminated the services of the petitioner against which the instant petition has been preferred. 2. Mr. Aniket Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that it is for the competent authority to pass the order in accordance with law, but the Deputy Registrar has no jurisdiction to direct respondent No.4 to terminate the services of the petitioner, as such, impugned order is unsustainable and bad in law. In support of his submission he would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots’ Association of India (ALPAI) and others v. Director General of Civil Aviation and others 1 . 3. Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, learned State Counsel, and Mr. Abhinav Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.4, would oppose 1 (2011) 5 SCC 435 3 WPS No. 385 of 2020 the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and support the impugned order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records minutely. 5. Admittedly, power andjurisdiction to exercise the power under Clause16.5 of the Service Rules is vested with the Board of Directors of the Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samiti. However, in the present case, the Deputy Registrar directed the Samiti to terminate the services of the petitioner in exercise of its power and, in turn, without applying application of mind, respondent No.4 terminated the services of the petitioner. In this regard, paras 26 to 28 of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots’ Association of India (ALPAI) (supra) is noticeable which state as under:- “26. The contention was raised before the High Court that the Circular dated 29-5-2008 has been issued by the authority having no competence, thus cannot be enforced. It is a settled legal proposition that the authority which has been conferred with the competence under the statute alone can pass the order. No other person, even a superior authority, can interfere with the functioning of the statutory authority. In a democratic set-up like ours, persons 4 WPS No. 385 of 2020 occupying key positions are not supposed to mortgage their discretion, volition and decision- making authority and be prepared to give way to carry out commands having no sanctity in law. Thus, if any decision is taken by a statutory authority at the behest or on suggestion of a person who has no statutory role to play, the same would be patently illegal. (Vide Purtabpore Co. Ltd. v. Cane Commr. of Bihar [(1969) 1 SCC 308 : AIR 1970 SC 1896] , Chandrika Jha v. State of Bihar [(1984) 2 SCC 41 : AIR 1984 SC 322] , Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab [(2001) 6 SCC 260 : AIR 2001 SC 2524] and Manohar Lal v. Ugrasen [(2010) 11 SCC 557 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 524 : AIR 2010 SC 2210] .) 27. Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Commr. of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji [1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16] , Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia [(2004) 2 SCC 65 : AIR 2004 SC 1159] and Pancham Chand v. State of H.P. [(2008) 7 SCC 117 : AIR 2008 SC 1888] observing that an authority vested with the power to act under the statute alone should exercise its discretion following the procedure prescribed therein and interference on the part of any authority upon whom the statute does not confer any jurisdiction, is wholly unwarranted in law. It violates the constitutional scheme. 28. In view of the above, the legal position emerges that the authority who has been vested with the power to exercise its discretion alone can pass the order. Even a senior official cannot provide for any guideline or direction to the authority under the statute to act in a particular manner.” 5 WPS No. 385 of 2020 6. Since the power is vested with the Board of Directors of the Samiti no direction could have been given by the Deputy Registrar to terminate the services of the petitioner holding that petitioner has committed misconduct rather, it was for the said Board to take decision. Accordingly, Annexure P/1 & Annexure P/2 are quashed. However, respondent No.4 is at liberty to consider and pass fresh order in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit