1 2025:CGHC:14039 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1404 of 2021 President And Director Board ( Aadim Jati Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit) Jewartala Road, District Balod Chhattisgarh Through President Yashwant Kumar Rawte S/o Umrao Singh Rawte, Aged About 45 Years, Village Jewartala Road, Post Tatenga District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Cooperative, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Mukesh Kumar Dhruv Presently Posted As Joint Registrar To The Court Of Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies Durg Chhattisgarh Bunkar Sangh Bhawan, Station Road, Santara Badi Durg Chhattisgarh 3. Registrar Cooperative Societies, Block -3, 2nd And 3rd Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4. Sub Registrar S/o Late Poshan Lal Sahu Cooperative Societies, District Balod Chhattisgarh 5. Someshwar Kumar Sahu S/o Late Poshan Lal Sahu R/o Village Jewartala Road, Post Tatenga District Balod Chhattisgarh SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.04.01 16:23:22 +0530 2 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. AG For Respondents : Mr. Vikram Pratap, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 24/03/2025 1. This petition under Section 226 of the constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 15.01.2021 passed by respondent No.2 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected and order dated 29.10.2020 passed by Sub Registrar Cooperative Societies, Balod/ respondent No. 4 has been affirmed. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, the petitioner who was appointed as peon with respondent Society on contractual basis on 17.01.2014 for monthly salary of Rs 2,000/- initially for one year which was continued when his services were terminated on 01.08.2019. The reason assigned for termination of service was that he has uploaded photographs by making derogative statement against the Sabha Pathi and the President of the Society with intent to disrupt petitioner’s society. 3. The respondent No. 5 has challenged his termination by raising dispute under Section 55 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 before Dy. Registrar cooperative society Balod. The respondent No. 4 has reinstated the respondent No. 5 with 75% back wages vide impugned order dated 29.10.2020. Learned Dy Registrar, Cooperative Societies while directing for reinstatement has recorded its finding that punishment is disproportionate to 3 the misconduct committed by the respondent No. 5. It has also recorded its finding that the enquiry has been conducted without giving any opportunity of hearing, as such it is violation of principle of natural justice and passed the order of reinstatement with 75% back wages. Being aggrieved with this order the petitioner has preferred an before Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies/Respondent No. 2 who vide impugned order has dismissed the appeal by recording its finding that no perversity or illegality in the impugned order has been committed by the author ties. Both the orders have been assailed before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that both the courts below have committed illegality reinstating the respondent with 75% back wages as the respondent No. 5 has not placed any material that he was in gainful employment during termination. He would further submit that the respondent No. 5 is daily wages employee, thus he may be able to earn his livelihood by doing work as agricultural labour, skill or unskilled labour. Thus, in absence of any evidence to this effect placed on record there was no justification for the Appellate Authority to dismiss the appeal and would pray for allowing the writ petition. 5. Mr. Vikram Pratap, Advocate appear on behalf of Mr Raghvendra Pradhan would submit that the finding recorded by both the Courts below are legal, justified does not warrant interference by this Court. He would further submit that since the respondent No. 5 was dismissed from service on account of certain misconduct therefore, enquiry should have been conducted to ascertain the truthiness of the allegation levelled against him. He would further submit that even the contractual employee are entitled to get 4 opportunity of hearing. He would further submit that the petitioner was employed in the year 2014 and more than five years has already been lapsed therefore he has acquired status of permanent employee as such enquiry should have been conducted but without conducting enquiry the respondent No. 5 has been removed from the service, as such impugned orders are legal, justified and does not warrant interference by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. From the record, it is quite vivid, that the petitioner has terminated the service of respondent No. 5 on account of certain allegation levelled against him. It is also admitted fact that in the enquiry no opportunity of haring was given to the respondent No. 5. Since, the respondent No. 5 was though contractual employee and certain allegation was levelled against him as such it is incumbent upon the petitioner to conduct at least some fact finding enquiry wherein he should have been given to put forwarded his stand. In absence of any such enquiry wherein the respondent can be given an opportunity to defend his case. The order of reinstating the petitioners cannot be found faulty warranting interference by this Court, as such the writ petition to the extent of reinstatement of Respondent No. 5 is legal, justified and does not warrant warrant interference by this court. 8. So far as the back wages are concerned, respondent No. 5 as a contractual employee and both the Courts below have not recorded the finding that respondent No. 5 during intervening period, he was in gainful employment or not as the burden lies upon the employee to plead and prove that during the period of termination he was in gainful employment. In 5 absence any such material placed on record, I am of the view that grant of 75% back wages to the respondent is uncalled for and needs interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed in part by affirming the order of reinstatement of respondent No. 5 as contractual employee and by quashing 75% grant of back wages by both the authorities. No order as to the cost. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh