1 2025:CGHC:11904 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6998 of 2024 1 - Ajay Kumar Sinha S/o Shri Vishnu Sinha Aged About 30 Years Gram Panchayat Mudhipar, District Khairgarh-Chhuhikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Co-Operative, Mahanandi Bhwan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Registrar Co-Operative Socities Chhattisgarh, Block-3, Second And Third Floor, Indravati Bhavan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Divisional Joint Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Durg Division, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Prescribed Authority/prescribed Officer Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Mudhipar, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 5 - Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Societies, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 6 - Chief Executive Officer, District Co-Operative Central Bank, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Yogendra Pandey, Advocate For State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.6 : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate on behalf of Shri Shashank Thakur, Advocate For other Respondents : None Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.04.03 11:25:44 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10/03/2025 1. By the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “i. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the relevant records pertaining to the instant matter. ii. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the order dated 15.06.2024 (Annexure P/1) and direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner along with all the consequential benefits. iii. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted in favor of the petitioner.” 2. The petitioner seeks to challenge the suspension order dated 15.06.2024 (Annexure P/1), issued by the respondent no. 4, which resulted in the abrupt and unjust suspension of the petitioner from service. The impugned order was predicated upon allegations of misappropriation of paddy and cash at the Paddy Procurement Centre, Mudhipar. The suspension order in question has been issued without lawful authority, as the Board of the society had already been superseded by the State Government, which subsequently vested the authority to impose disciplinary actions, including suspensions, in the prescribed authority. The respondent prescribed authority who issued the suspension lacked the requisite power to do so because the suspension directly contravenes Clause 17 of the Service Regulations, 2018, which explicitly requires prior approval from the Divisional Joint Registrar before any suspension can be effected. This procedural step is a critical safeguard intended to ensure that suspensions are carried out in accordance with established rules, protecting the rights of employees from arbitrary or unjust actions. The failure to obtain this mandatory approval constitutes a clear violation of both procedural norms and statutory provisions, rendering the 3 suspension not only procedurally irregular but also unlawful. Furthermore, the suspension is based on unfounded allegations of paddy and cash misappropriation at the Paddy Procurement Centre, yet investigations have identified the Society Manager as the actual culprit. Despite the absence of any incriminating evidence, the petitioner has been arbitrarily targeted, raising concerns of mala fide intentions behind the action. At this stage, it is important to mention here that the suspension of the petitioner appears to disregard the fact that investigations conducted by the District Cooperative Central Bank, Rajnandgaon, have pointed to the direct involvement of the Society Manager in the misappropriation, despite these findings, the petitioner has been unfairly held accountable, leading to the suspension. There are explicit guidelines set forth in Clause 17 of the 2018 Service Regulations, which meticulously outline the procedure for suspending an employee within the primary society. This provision underscores that any employee facing suspension for serious misconduct must first obtain prior approval from the Divisional Joint Registrar. This prerequisite not only ensures accountability but also safeguards the integrity of the suspension process. Once the necessary permission is secured, the Board of the Society is empowered to proceed with the suspension, thereby maintaining a structured and transparent approach to disciplinary actions. This systematic framework reinforces the society's commitment to upholding ethical standards and the principles of natural justice. The rule further states that such order of suspension has to be mandatory be in written format and should also be enclosed in the personal file of the said employee. For ready reference rule 17 (1) has been reproduced below: “(A) There has to be action being taken against the said employee for a serious misconduct. 4 (B) Prior permission from the Divisional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies shall be taken. (C) The board of the society would be competent to issue the orders for suspension.” Therefore, the three critical preconditions for issuing a suspension order by the competent authority have not been satisfied in this case. Firstly, the Board of the society, which typically holds the authority to impose such actions, has been dissolved and replaced by the prescribed authority under Clause 49(8) of the Cooperative Societies Act, as previously noted in this petition. Consequently, any suspension order should emanate from the prescribed authority exercising powers under Rule 17, rather than the dissolved Board. Secondly, the allegations of serious misconduct are unfounded, as neither the inquiry conducted by the District Cooperative Central Bank of Rajnandgaon nor the formation of a three-member committee to investigate irregularities under the Branch Manager's supervision references the present petitioner as a wrongdoer. This absence of mention in both communications clearly indicates that no action is being proposed against the petitioner and thirdly, the essential requirement of obtaining prior permission from the Divisional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies has been entirely overlooked. The documentation submitted shows that only the Deputy Registrar's permission was sought, which was granted in a cursory manner without proper consideration. This does not fulfill the requisite condition for prior approval. According to the bye-laws of the Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Mudhipar, particularly Clause 42(2), the powers and responsibilities regarding the maintenance of financial records are clearly defined. This clause explicitly stipulates that the Society Manager (Samiti Prabandhak) is solely responsible for managing all receipts, vouchers, and the cashbook subsidy ledger. It categorically states that these 5 records shall not be maintained by salesman, thereby underscoring the exclusive authority of the Society Manager in handling the society's financial documentation. This provision ensures accountability and integrity in the management of the society's finances. Further it is pertinent to note that the present petitioner, serving as a Salesman, is primarily tasked with specific, limited responsibilities as outlined in the organization's operational framework. This role does not encompass weighing or verifying the actual paddy. As given these defined duties and the procedural safeguards enshrined in the service laws, which require a thorough process prior to any suspension order, it is clear that the present petitioner has been unjustly implicated in allegations of misappropriation and corruption. The inquiry already conducted by the District Cooperative Central Bank of Rajnandgaon and the FIR filed against actual wrongdoers underscore the baseless nature of the claims against the petitioner, who is being subjected to harassment driven by ulterior motives and mala fides. In view of these clear violations of statutory provisions, procedural norms, and principles of natural justice, the petitioner respectfully prays for the quashing of the suspension order dated 15.06.2024. The petitioner also seeks restoration to their rightful position, along with all consequential benefits, to remedy the manifest injustice and harm caused by the unlawful suspension. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of suspension has been passed against the Primary Krishi Sakh Sahkari Society Seva Niyam, 2018. According to petitioner before passing order of suspension Rule 17 was required to be followed and it can only be passed after getting approval from the Divisional Joint Registrar, however, that has not been done and thereafter the suspension would not be for more than 3 months and it is required to be extended it could not be extended more than 6 months. However, in the 6 present case nothing has been done and the petitioner is suspended since 15.06.2024 as such the order dated 15.06.2024 is required to be quashed and the authorities are required to be directed to revoke the suspension of the petitioner forthwith. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that though rules have not been followed but looking to the acts committed by the petitioner he has rightly been suspended. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available with due care. 6. Since the order impugned is contrary to Rule 17 of the Service Regulations Act, 2018, as such prima facie it seems that the impugned order has been passed in an illegal and arbitrary manner without following Rule 17 of the Service Regulations Act, 2018, as such the impugned suspension order dated 15.06.2024 is hereby quashed. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh