1 2025:CGHC:16937 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2090 of 2016 1 - Indramani Dewangan S/o Late Shri Gopal Ram Dewangan, Aged About 36 Years R/o Ranigaon, Ratanpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Cooperative Societies, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, 4 - Adivasi Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Through Its President, Adivasi Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Ranigaon, Ratanpur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Akash Pandey, Advocate For Respondents 1 to 3/ State : Ms. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.4 : None ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 11/04/2025 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief (s)- 2 i. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 03/05/2016 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.3 / Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bilaspur. ii. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. iii. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 2. As per pleadings, the case of the petitioner in nutshell is that the petitioner was posted as Incharge Society Manager in Adivasi Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Ranigaon, Ratanpur, Bilaspur. During his tenure, on the basis of details given by Patwari about the agriculturists and on the basis of agriculturists’ registration number, total 429.20 qtls of paddy procured for 11.60 hectares. The society issued a notice to the petitioner on 18/03/2016 seeking explanation that on the basis of newspaper report, the Board of Directors of the Society decided to issue show cause notice about the fact narrated in the newspaper for 4 acres of land, 400 paddy procured. The society asked the petitioner to submit explanation within three days, otherwise the proceedings under Section 53-B of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act of 1960’) will be initiated. The petitioner submitted his reply on 21/03/2016 and the reply was found satisfactory and the Society in its Board meeting dated 31/03/2016 resolved not to proceed under Section 53-B of the Act of 1960 and he was exonerated from all the allegations leveled against him. Thereafter, on 20/04/2016, the Deputy Registrar issued a show cause notice to the petitioner exercising power under Section 53-B(1) on the same set of allegations. The petitioner again submitted his reply to the said notice on 25/04/2016. Thereafter, the Deputy Registrar passed the order (Annexure P/1) removing the petitioner from service for a period of 3 years. It is this order which is impugned in this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an employee of respondent No.4. Certain allegations were leveled against the petitioner with regard to purchase of paddy more than the land of the farmers falling within the jurisdiction of respondent No.4. Thereafter, the Deputy Registrar/respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice to respondent No.4 to take action against the present petitioner. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and he was not found guilty of any excessive purchase of paddy, however, respondent No.3 3 did not agree with the report and exercising power under Section 53 -B (2) the Act of 1960 issued notice to the petitioner to show cause which was duly replied by the petitioner. After considering the reply of the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 03/05/2016 (Annexure P/1), respondent No.3 terminated the petitioner from service for a period of three years. He submits that respondent No.3 did not consider the reply of the petitioner in its letter and spirit. He further submits that respondent No.3 can only exercise the power under Section 53 -B (2) of the Act of 1960 if the Society failed to take any action against the employee on the notice of respondent No.3. He further submits that in the case in hand, after the notice was issued, Society / respondent No.4 conducted an enquiry and thereafter, the Society in its Board meeting exonerated the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order (Annexure P/1) is beyond jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the above submission and submits that respondent No.3 has exercised power under Section 53-B (2) of the Act of 1960. This is an original order and once respondent No.4 failed to take any action against the petitioner, the impugned order was passed. Apart from this, she submits that the impugned order is appealable under Section 78 of the Act of 1960 before the appellate authority i.e. Registrar, Cooperative Society / respondent No.2. Therefore, in the light of alternative remedy, this petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 5. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though there is alternative remedy of filing appeal before respondent No.2 under Section 78 of the Act of 1960, however, since the order is passed beyond jurisdiction without consideration the reply to its proper perspective, this Court may entertain this writ petition. He further submits that while admitting the petition on 07/06/2016, this Court was pleased to stay the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 03/05/2016 (Annexure P/1). Therefore, this writ petition may be decided on merits. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Be that as it may, admittedly there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner. The alternative remedy appears to be efficacious and the grounds with regard to jurisdiction of respondent No.3 can be agitated by the petitioner before 4 the appellate authority. Ofcourse, this Court can entertain the writ petition if the impugned order is found to be without jurisdiction but in the considered opinion of this Court, this exercise can be done by the appellate authority. Therefore, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. This Court, while admitting the petition, granted interim relief to the petitioner, therefore, interest of justice would be served if the petitioner is granted some time to exercise his right of filing statutory appeal under Section 78 of the Act of 1960. Accordingly, a liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to avail statutory alternative remedy within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order. For a period of 60 days from today, the interim order passed by this Court on 07/06/2016 shall remain in operation. The petition is accordingly finally disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.04.11 16:54:20 +0530