1 2025:CGHC:18327 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6335 of 2024 1 - Mohan Yadav S/o. Shri Jhudi Yadav Aged About 54 Years R/o. Village - Narmadapur, Tehsil - Mainpat, District - Surguja (C.G.) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Cooperative, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Registrar Cooperative Societies, 2nd And 3rd Floor, Block-3, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Deputy Commissioner-Cum-Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Ambikapur, Composite Building, Room No. 59, Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Officer-In-Charge - Cum - Administrator Adim Jati Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Narmadapur, Village - Narmadapur, Gram Panchayat Narmadapur, Tehsil Mainpat, District - Surguja (C.G.) 5 - Adim Jati Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Narmadapur, Village - Narmadapur, Tehsil - Mainpat, District - Surguja (C.G.) 6 - Food Officer Office Of Collector (Food Section) Collectorate Office, Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) 7 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sitapur, Distict - Surguja (C.G.) 8 - Shri Ravi Rahi Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sitapur, Distict - Surguja (C.G.) Respondent(s) RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.04.25 12:24:14 +0530 2 (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate For State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, GA For Resp. No. 4 & 5 : Mr. Apoorva Tripathi, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 23/04/2025 1. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner, who was working as Clerk in the office of Respondent No.5, questioning the order impugned dated 23/09/2024 (Annexure-P/2) issued by respondent No.3, based on which, respondent No.4 vide order impugned dated 25/09/2024 (Annexure-P/1) has terminated the service of the petitioner without conducting any enquiry and without affording any opportunity of hearing. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the basis of some frivolous complaint made against the petitioner on the allegations that he has encroached the certain Govt. land. Notice was issued to the petitioner, to which, the petitioner submitted his reply and denied the allegations levelled against him. He would submit that the land belongs to his forefather and they are in peaceful possession of the same. According to the petitioner only on the basis of bald and baseless allegations, the notices were issued. Despite the said fact, the respondent all of a sudden, the impugned order has been passed by which he has been terminated from the service without conducting any enquiry and affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He would submit that Regulation 16.6 of the Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Societies’ Employees Service Rule, 2018 clearly provides that in case of serious misconduct on part of an employee, the Board of Directors of the concerned cooperative society 3 would get an enquiry conducted by the Branch Manager / Observer of the financing bank of the society into the said allegations of misconduct and it is only after holding an enquiry into the allegations of misconduct that the major penalty of termination from service can be issued against an employee of the cooperative society. Whereas, in the present case, while issuing the order dated 25.09.2024, neither the petitioner was issued any notice nor was the petitioner granted any opportunity of hearing, which is a clear violation of Regulation 16.6 of Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Societies’ Employees Service Rule, 2018 as also the principles of natural justice. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that during the service period of the petitioner, not only the petitioner, his family members too were involved in fraudulent activities in acquiring the Govt. land. The said action of the petitioner is contrary to the Service Rules. He would submit that on receipt of the complaint, the competent authority issued the notices to the petitioner, however, the petitioner has failed to submit his response. Thereafter, the Tehsildar submitted its report before respondent no. 7, who in turn, sent to respondent No.6 and subsequently, the matter was forwarded to the respondent No.3 for taking administrative action. And, eventually, the respondent No.3 after examining the report and considering all other aspects has come to the conclusion that the act of the petitioner comes under the purview of the misconduct and accordingly issued the order dated 23/09/2024 for recommending the termination of the petitioner. On the basis of the said order, the order dated 25/09/2024 has been 4 passed. The orders impugned are just and proper warranting no interference of this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents. 5. From the orders impugned, it is quite vivid that pursuant to the complaint with regard to alleged encroachment of Govt. land though notices were issued to the petitioner and according to the respondent, they being not satisfied with the conduct of the petitioner, straight away directed to terminate the services of the petitioner by order dated 23/09/2024 and pursuant to the same, the order dated 25/09/2024 has been passed. It is an admitted fact that before termination of the petitioner, the proper procedure has not been followed as envisaged under the Regulation 16.6 of the Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Societies’ Employees Service Rule, 2018 and imposed the major punishment of dismissal from service. The respondents’ authority ought to have contemplate the enquiry proceeding as provided under the Bank Regulation and thereafter, after affording due opportunity of hearing, the appropriate steps can be taken against the delinquent, however, in the case in hand, the same procedure has not been followed and hence, the same is contrary to the well settled principles of natural justice. 6. It is the well settled proposition of law that if there is a power to decide and decide detrimentally to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in exercise of such a power and that the rule of natural justice operates in areas not covered by any law validly made. 5 7. It is also the trite law that the adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized states is of supreme importance or when a quasi judicial body embarks on determining dispute between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is an issue. Even an administrative order, which involves civil consequence must be consisted with the rules of natural justice. 8. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons stated hereinabove, it is quite vivid that the order impugned dated 23/09/2024 & 25//09/2024 (Annexure P/2 & P/1) appear to be passed without giving an appropriate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and also in gross violation of Regulation 16.6 of the Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Societies’ Employees Service Rule, 2018, the same cannot be sustained and accordingly both the orders are set-aside. The petitioner be reinstated in service, however, he is not entitled for any back wages of the said period on the principles of no work no pay. 9. However, the respondents’ authorities are at liberty to take appropriate steps, if so advised, as per the regulation 16.6 of the Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Societies’ Employees Service Rule, 2018 and after following the due process of law including the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 10. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul