1 CGHC010289872022 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5855 of 2022 Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Salka Bearing Registration No 609, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Through Its Authorized Officer ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Cooperative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Tribunal Bilaspur District Chhattisgarh 3 - The Joint Registrar Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies, In Front Of Collectorate, Old Composite Building, Bilaspur Division Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Deputy Registrar Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies, In Front Of Collectorate, Old Composite Building, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - Piyush Kumar Soni S/o Mannulal Soni Aged About 41 Years Resident Of Beltara, Post Beltara, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Hariom Rai, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State For Respondent No.5 : : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13/08/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/ order, thereby setting- aside/quashing the impugned order dated 22.07.2022. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that respondent No. 5 was appointed to the post of Salesman under the petitioner Society vide order dated 28.12.2016. He would further submit that there were allegations of irregularities in the distribution of food grains against respondent No. 5, therefore, an FIR was registered on 15.02.2017, at Police Station- Ratanpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, as a result of that, the petitioner remained absent from his duties from 30.12.2017. He would also submit that on 26.02.2018, the Board of Directors of the Cooperative Society passed resolution to terminate the services of the petitioner and issued order dated 26.02.2018. He would contend that respondent No. 5 challenged the order of termination by raising a dispute under Section 55(2) of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 before the Deputy Registrar. The respondent No.5 participated in the proceedings and contended that no departmental inquiry was initiated before passing the order of termination from service on 26.02.2018; for absence from duties, minor punishment would be inflicted; no 3 opportunity of hearing was afforded to him, nor was any inquiry conducted. The Deputy Registrar vide order dated 31.03.2021 quashed the order impugned, which was affirmed by the Joint Registrar vide order dated 28.01.2022 and subsequently by the Cooperative Tribunal vide order dated 22.07.2022. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that respondent No. 5 remained absent from service; therefore, a show-cause notice was issued. As no response was received, a decision was taken by the Board of Directors to remove respondent No. 5 from service. He would further argue that the order passed against respondent No. 5 is strictly in accordance with law and that the authorities and the Tribunal committed an error of law while setting aside the termination order; thus, he prays that the petition may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 would support the impugned orders and submit that there are concurrent findings recorded by the Deputy Registrar, Joint Registrar and the learned Tribunal that service rules have not been followed while passing the order impugned; no opportunity of hearing was afforded to respondent No. 5 and no departmental inquiry was conducted, therefore, the termination order was rightly set aside. It is also argued that absence from duty is punishable with a minor penalties; thus, the order dated 26.02.2018 has rightly been held to be bad in law. 4 5. Heard. 6. Perusal of the documents would show that respondent No. 5 was not provided sufficient opportunity of hearing. According to the service rules, absence from duty is a misconduct punishable with a minor penalty, whereas the petitioner inflicted a major penalty of removal from service. The Deputy Registrar, Joint Registrar and the Cooperative Tribunal have categorically held that applicable service rules have not been followed; no inquiry was conducted and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to respondent No. 5, therefore, the order dated 26.02.2018 has rightly been held to be illegal, I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Deputy Registrar, Joint Registrar and Cooperative Tribunal. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE NADIM