1 2026:CGHC:20127 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3369 of 2024 Nawaz Ahmad Khan S/o Aijaz Khan Aged About 48 Years R/o House No. 159, Ward No. 3, Chauthna, Dist- Rajnandgaon ( C.G.). --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Secretary, Cooperative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Dist- Raipur, ( C.G.). 2 - District- Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Through- Its Chief Executive Officer, Rajnandgaon ( C.G.) 3 - Collector-Cum Administrative Officer, District- Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Rajnandgaon, ( C .G.) 4 - Nodal Officer, District- Central Co- Operative Bank Ltd. Branch- Medha, Rajnandgaon ( C.G.). 5 - Branch Manager, District- Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Branch Medha, Rajnandgaon ( C.G.). 6 - Commissioner/ Additional Registrar, Cooperatives And Registrar SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.05.04 17:04:40 +0530 2 Firms And Societies, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar ( C.G.). 7 - Deputy Secretary, Cooperative Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar Nagar, Dist- Raipur ( C.G.). 8 - Enquiry Officer, Joint Commissioner, Cooperatives And Registrar, Firms And Societies, Chhattisgrh, Bilaspur ( C.G.). 9 - Registrar, Cooperative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, (C.G.). --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. S.C. Verma Senior Advocate alongwith Mr. Manharan Lal Sahu and Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocates For Respondents/ State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondents No.2, 4 & 5 : Mr. Gajendra Prakash Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate with WPS No. 7604 of 2024 1 - Laxmi Kant Soni S/o Khedur Ram Sani, Aged About 62 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - H.O. Rajnandgaon, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Prakash Akhilesh S/o Lalaji Ahilesh Aged About 58 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - H.O. Rajnandgaon, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Prakash Shukla S/o R.D. Shukla Aged About 52 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Khujji, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 4 - Manish Shirvastava S/o S.K. Shrivastava, Aged About 51 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Agri.Br. Rajnandgaon, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Suresh Sontakke S/o Kunji Lal Sontakke, Aged About 62 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - H.O. Rajnandgaon, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Neeraj Shrivastava S/o Shivrat Shrivastava, Aged About 58 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - City Br. Rajnandgaon, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Smt. Savita Singh W/o Late Gulab Singh Aged About 62 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Sahdev Nagar Rajnandgaon, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 8 - Ashok Kumar Sharma, S/o Dinbandhu Sharma Aged About 55 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Agri. Br. Kawardha, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 9 - Doman Singh Chandravanshi S/o Jalesh Prasad Chandravanshi, Aged About 37 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Pandatrai, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 10 - Bedram Taram S/o Chandu Lal Taram Aged About 52 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Taregaon Jang41, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 11 - Kuleshwar Singh Thakur S/o Dwarika Singh Aged About 61 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Silhati, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 12 - Haji Sheikh Taukir Mohammed S/o Sheikh Lal Mohammed, Aged About 41 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Pandariya, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 13 - Badriram Chandravanshi S/o Sarju Prasad Chandravanshi Aged About 61 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Kunda, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 14 - Rampal Koliyare S/o Latkhor Koliyare Aged About 54 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Nodal Kawardha, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 15 - Vishnu Ram Kaushik S/o Kuwar Singh Kaushik, Aged About 61 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Ranveerpur, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 16 - Alok Kumar Mishra S/o Bhanupratap Mishra Aged About 53 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Kukdur, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 17 - Raghvendra Mishra S/o Bhuneshwar Prasad Mishra Aged About 51 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Pandariya, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 5 18 - Vinod Singh Rajput S/o Karan Singh Rajput Aged About 53 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Pipriya, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 19 - Amit Chandel S/o Amardas Chandel Aged About 37 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Taregaon Jangal, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 20 - Sajan Das Gop S/o Makhandas Gop Aged About 61 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Raveli, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 21 - Gambhir Ram Markande S/o Gaindu Ram Markande Aged About 60 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Rengakhar Kala, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 22 - Prabuddha Kumar Gautam S/o Keju Ram Gautam Aged About 62 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Bundeli, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 23 - Baleshwar Chandravanshi S/o Sahdev Ram Chandravanshi Aged About 58 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Mohara, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 24 - Geetika Singh Naruka D/o Lokendra Singh Naruka Aged About 60 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Khairagarh, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 25 - Purushottam Lal Shrivas S/o Dukhuram Shrivas Aged About 58 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Kukdur, Zila Sahkari 6 Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 26 - Shyam Lal Thakur S/o Tatu Ram Thakur, Aged About 59 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Mohala, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 27 - Paras Ram Juresiya S/o Ratnu Ram Juresiya, Aged About 51 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Chhuriya, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 28 - Maksudan Sahu S/o Rekh Ram Sahu Aged About 60 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Khairagarh, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 29 - Bahoran Singh Netam S/o Sadaram Netam Aged About 57 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Deposit Br. Kawardha, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 30 - Gautam Ram Jhariya S/o Ratan Lal Jhariya, Aged About 60 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Salhewara, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 31 - Santosh Kumar Sharma S/o Mahendra Kumar Sharma, Aged About 60 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Chowki, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 32 - Mohit Ram Rawte S/o Sudrshan Singh Rawre Aged About 57 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Manpur, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 7 33 - Bhola Ram Netam S/o Nijam Singh Netam Aged About 61 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Mohla, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 34 - Sanjay Kumar Sahu S/o Sudamaram Sahu Aged About 53 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Medha, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 35 - Yogendra Sharma S/o Shivnarayan Sharma Aged About 51 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Agri. Br. Dongargarh, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 36 - Ramkumar Yadav S/o Prabhu Lal Yadav, Aged About 56 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Mudhipar, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 37 - Panch Ram Kosa S/o Chhabilram Kosa Aged About 49 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - L.B. Nagar, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 38 - Durga Ram Nagpure S/o Bharat Ram Nagpure Aged About 60 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - City Branch Dongargarh, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 39 - Sukhdas Keshri S/o Jhagru Ram Keshri Aged About 58 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Medha, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 40 - Sewa Ram Sahu S/o Chainu Ram Sahu Aged About 61 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Gaindatola, Zila Sahkari 8 Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 41 - Alok Kumar Sharma S/o Kumarnath Sharma Aged About 57 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Khairagarh (Nodal), Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 42 - Prakash Mahobiya S/o Madan Lal Mahobiya Aged About 57 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Mudhipar, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 43 - Yogesh Singh Thakur S/o Jaynarayan Singh Aged About 48 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Bundeli, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 44 - Arvind Usare S/o Vedsingh Usare, Aged About 53 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Taregaon Jangal, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 45 - Bharat Bhushan Gahine S/o Mehtar Ram Aged About 55 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager - Mohara, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Cooperative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commissioner, Cooperative Cum Registrar, Cooperative Societies Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 9 3 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Bank Maryadit, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Shankar Bhawan, Plot No. 74, Sector-24, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Joint Commissioner Cum Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Durg, Division, Durg, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Rajnandgaon, Head Office , G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondents/ Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Bank Maryadit : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Gajendra Prakash Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate with WPS No. 6042 of 2024 Sudhir Kumar Soni S/o Shri Ramnath Soni Aged About 43 Years Presently Posted As Cadre Office (Class - Iii), Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Bank Ltd., Headquarter, Sahakar Bhawan Plot No. 74, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Cooperative, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner Cooperative - Cum - Registrar Cooperative Societies, Block B, 2nd And 3rd Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 10 3 - Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Bank Ltd., Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Sahakar Bhawan, Plot No. 74, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Bank Ltd. Chief Executive Officer, Sahakar Bhawan, Plot No. 74, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattigsarha 5 - Joint Commissioner - Cum - Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with WPS No. 6016 of 2024 S. K. Verma S/o Shri M.L. Verma Aged About 55 Years Presently Posted As Chief Executive Officer, District Central Cooperative Bank Ambikapur, Deviganj Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Cooperative , Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commissioner Cooperative Cum Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Block B, 2nd And 3rd Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Bank Ltd. Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Sahakar Bhawan, Plot No. 74, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 11 4 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Bank Ltd. Chief Executive Officer, Sahakar Bhawan, Plot No. 74, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Joint Commissioner-Cum-Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies, Bilaspur, Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners in WPS No. 6016/2024 and 6042/2024 : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondents/ Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Bank Maryadit : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 30/04/2026 1. In WPC No. 3369 of 2024, the petitioner, who is the Administrator of District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Rajnandgaon (henceforth the DCCB), is seeking quashment of the inquiry report (Annexure P-8), the communication dated 20.06.2024 (Annexure P-9) and the order dated 28.06.2024 (Annexure P-10). 2. In WPS Nos. 6016 of 2024 and 6042 of 2024, the petitioners, who are the Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of DCCB, are seeking quashment of the communication dated 20.06.2024 (Annexure P- 1) and the order dated 28.06.2024 (Annexure P-2). 3. In WPS No. 7604 of 2024, the petitioners, who are the Branch Managers of the respective branches of DCCB, are seeking quashment of Clause 'ख' of the impugned letter dated 28.06.2024 12 (Annexure P-1), in respect of them and also seeks for setting aside the consequential proceedings initiated by the DCCB. 4. Since identical issues involved in all the above writ petitions, they are being heard and decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the pleadings and documents of WPC No. 3369 of 2024 are being referred to and considered. 5. The core question involved in the present batch of writ petitions is whether, during the financial years 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022- 23, the appointments of daily wage peon (on Collector rate) made by the Board of Directors (BoD) of the DCCB, on the basis of requisitions received from the concerned Branches, were in accordance with law. Objections were raised to such appointments on the ground that they were made de hors the relevant provisions, without any authority and without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority. The said allegations were enquired into in accordance with Section 59 of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, “the Act, 1960”), and in the said enquiry, the Inquiry Officer concluded that the appointments of the daily wagers were made in disregard of the financial interests of the DCCB, thereby causing substantial financial loss to the Bank. 6. (a) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner (Administrator) submits that on the basis of requisitions received from the concerned Branches of the DCCB with regard to requirement of manpower, particularly in class IV category, the appointments of daily wagers were made on the basis of a 13 unanimous decision taken by the Board of Directors. He submits that the instructions dated 11.6.2001 issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies were only not to make appointments on the vacant post of Peon and there was no general prohibition. Thus, the observations/directions of the State Government and the Additional Registrar terming the act of the petitioner as criminal is wholly unsustainable. He further submits that the petitioner has not misused his position in any manner. He would submit that the petitioner has an unblemished record of more than 30 years and no irregularity has ever been attributed to him. The appointed daily wagers had joined their duties and were paid wages as per Collectorate rates, which were revised from time to time by the State Government itself, indicating that their appointments were not irregular. (b) Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the order dated 01.03.2024, by which the appointment of daily wagers has been cancelled, has been passed without issuing any notice and without following the basic principles of natural justice. Further, only those 53 employees appointed during the petitioner’s tenure have been targeted, while similarly situated employees appointed earlier have been retained, which shows arbitrariness. He would also submit that the inquiry conducted is stated to be selective, hurried and with a pre-determined approach, rendering the impugned action unsustainable in law. 7. (i) While supporting the aforesaid arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Administrator, learned 14 counsel appearing for the CEOs of the DCCB submits that a due enquiry was conducted and, upon its conclusion, the present petitioners were exonerated of the charges levelled against them; however, they questioned the impugned orders (20/06/2024 and 28/06/2024) which have been passed in an illegal and arbitrary manner. He further submits that the petitioners have been subjected to a deliberate act of vindictiveness without any fault on their part and have been made to suffer merely because they were posted in the said Bank during a different regime. He also contends that the petitioners were only cadre employee of the Apex Bank and had acted in accordance with the decisions taken by the Board/Administrator, without exercising any independent discretion so as to attract any criminal liability. (ii) Learned counsel also submits that the enquiry purportedly conducted under Section 59 of the Act, 1960 stands vitiated, as it was initiated with a pre-determined mindset and not by the Registrar on the basis of any independent satisfaction of irregularity. The enquiry is stated to have been conducted under the influence of directions issued by the State Government, thereby rendering it biased, without jurisdiction, and contrary to the statutory scheme. Consequently, no proceedings could have been initiated on the basis of such an enquiry report. Learned counsel further submits that subsequent directions issued by the State Government and the Registrar for initiating proceedings against the petitioners demonstrate clear bias and arbitrariness, as similarly situated appointments made prior to the petitioners’ 15 tenure have not been subjected to any scrutiny. It is thus contended that the entire action is discriminatory, premeditated and unsustainable in law. 8. (A) Learned counsel for the petitioners (Branch Managers) in WPS No. 7604/2024 would also support the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the Administrators and CEOs. He submits that the petitioners in this petition were working as Branch Managers in different branches of DCCB, Rajnandgaon and had no role in the appointment of daily wage employees. He submits that the appointments were made on the basis of recommendations of the BoD and orders issued by the CEO, and the petitioners merely complied with the directions of the Head Office by allowing such employees to join. He further submits that even the enquiry conducted under Section 59 of the Act, 1960 has found the then Administrator and CEOs responsible for the alleged irregularities, and not the petitioners. Despite this, the respondent authorities, acting beyond the scope of the enquiry report and without application of mind, have issued directions and initiated proceedings against the petitioners, which is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law. (B) Mr. Syed Majid Ali, learned counsel would submit that in the case at hand, the petitioners are questioning Clause 'ख' of the impugned order dated 28/06/2024 whereby the Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies directed the Managing Director of the Apex Bank, Joint Commissioner, Cooperative and the CEO, DCCB to take action against the petitioners who were working as 16 Branch Managers at different branches of the DCCB. The petitioners also challenge the consequential proceedings initiated pursuant to the said order dated 28.06.2024. According to the learned counsel, the Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies has observed that action be taken against the Branch Managers who were found guilty in the appointment of daily wagers. He would submit that before passing the order impugned, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and even no enquiry was conducted. He would next submit that the order impugned has been passed with a predetermined and premeditation mind observing that the petitioners are found guilty. Thus, the Clause 'ख' of the order impugned, in respect of the petitioners (Branch Managers) may be quashed. 9. (I) Ex adverso, by placing reliance upon the instructions dated 11.06.2001, learned counsel appearing for the State, learned counsel appearing for the Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Bank Maryadit as also the learned counsel appearing for the DCCB would submit that despite the prohibition imposed on appointments to the post of Peon in various District Central Cooperative Banks, the Board of Directors proceeded to appoint Peons on a daily wage basis in different branches of the DCCB that too without obtaining prior approval of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. He submits that such action of the BoD, as well as other officials of the DCCB, who are ex-officio members, is without authority of law. (II) Insofar as the issue of non-affording of opportunity of hearing to the Branch Managers is concerned, learned counsel 17 submits that, after passing of the order dated 28.06.2024, notices were issued to the Branch Managers. Learned counsel would contend that the impugned enquiry report as also the orders dated 20.06.2024 and 28.06.2024 are legal, justified and do not call for any interference by this Court. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 11. From bare perusal of the material available on record and from the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, it is quite evident that owing to the requirement of manpower in various branches of the DCCB, Rajnandgaon, requisitions were sent for appointment of daily wage peon (on Collector rate) Considering the requisitions received and the requirement of personnel, the BoD unanimously took a decision to appoint Class-IV employees on a daily wage basis. 12. A perusal of Clause (2) of the circular dated 11.06.2001 reveals that it pertains to non-recruitment of Peons in cooperative banks. The said clause reads thus :- " सहकारी बैंका स वा नियम सग्रह (2) बैंका म भृत्य का पदों का समप्त कारी बैंबैंत :- बैंकों में भृ त्यों कों जो व्यवस्था वर्तमेंन में प्रचलिर्त है, उसे जोरी रीख जोव, किकोंन्र्त# कोंम्प्यों%टरी कोंरीण कों कोंरीण बैंकिंकों)ग प्रण में भृ त्यों कों आवश्योंकोंर्त न्यों%नर्तमें हैर्त है, अर्त. बैंकों में भृ त्यों कों रिरीक्र्त पदों परी आग भृर्त3 न कों जोव र्तथा इन रिरीक्र्त पदों कों सेमेंप्र्त किकोंयों जोव। जोहै8-जोहै8 भृ त्यों सेवकिनव त्त हैर्त है यों अन्यों कोंरीण से बैंकों सेव से प थाकों किकोंए जोर्त 18 है, उन पदों कों किवरूद्ध भृ कोंई किनयों#क्तिक्र्त न कों जोव र्तथा यों पदों भृ सेमेंप्र्त किकोंए जोव।" 13. From bare perusal of the aforesaid clause, it is categorically mentioned that no Peons can be recruited against vacant posts, even where Peons have retired from service or have been terminated; such posts are also not to be filled. In the cases at hand, it is not the case that the BoD recommended appointment of Peons against vacant posts; rather, it only recommended engagement of personnel on a daily wage basis. Thus, it cannot be said that the BoD of the DCCB acted contrary to the circular dated 11.06.2001. As far as the submission of the State that prior permission of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies was not obtained before initiating the recruitment process of daily wagers is concerned, since the appointments were not made against vacant posts, such permission was not required. In fact, the Administrator, the CEOs and the Branch Managers acted in accordance with the decisions taken by the BoD, wherein representatives of the Government were also present. The prohibitory circular dated 11.06.2001 issued by the Registrar only restrains appointments against vacant posts of Peons. In the present case, the BoD had unanimously resolved to appoint daily wage peons (on Collector rate) in various branches as per their requirement and demand. Such decisions of the BoD, and the act of the petitioners pursuant thereto, do not disclose any criminal intent or misconduct. Accordingly, the act attributed to the petitioners cannot be termed as criminal in nature. 19 14. On the last date of hearing, learned State counsel was directed to clarify whether, despite the circular dated 11.06.2001 issued by the Registrar, any appointments on daily wage basis were being made in the Cooperative Department. In response, learned State counsel submits that such daily wage appointments have indeed been made even after issuance of the said prohibitory order. This clearly indicates that the action taken against the petitioners, treating such appointments as being in violation of the order dated 11.06.2001, is discriminatory in nature. 15. Even otherwise, before issuance of the impugned orders by the Additional Registrar, whereby the act of the petitioners has been termed as criminal in nature, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to them and the entire action has been taken behind their back. It is well settled that any action entailing civil consequences, particularly one holding a person guilty of misconduct, must strictly adhere to the principles of natural justice. Albeit learned counsel for the respondents made a submission before this Court that due opportunity of hearing was afforded, but they failed to produce any document to substantiate their claim. 16. It is well settled that if there is power to decide and such decision adversely affects a person, the duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power. The rule of natural justice operates even in areas not covered by any specific statutory provision. The principles of natural justice require that no person shall be condemned unheard (audi alteram partem). 17. In the present cases, it appears that the respondent authorities 20 have not followed the principles of natural justice, as the impugned orders have been passed holding the petitioners guilty without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without conducting a proper enquiry. The practice of passing orders involving civil consequences, without affording an opportunity of hearing, deserves to be deprecated. 18. It is also trite law that adherence to the principles of natural justice is of paramount importance, particularly when an administrative or quasi-judicial authority takes a decision affecting the rights of the parties. Any action taken with a premeditated or predetermined mindset, without objective evaluation of facts, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 19. In the facts of the present cases, this Court finds that the impugned enquiry report, communication dated 20.06.2024 and order dated 28.06.2024 have been issued without due application of mind and in violation of the settled principles of law. 20. This Court can very well exercise the power vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when it prima facie established that there is a breach of gross violation of rules of natural justice. 21. It is noteworthy to mention here that in the case of the CEOs the authorities conducted due departmental enquiry and on completion of the same they have been exonerated from all the charges levelled against them. 22. In view of the foregoing and applying the aforesaid settled principles to the facts of the present cases, this Court finds that 21 the impugned orders have been passed in a manner which is arbitrary, lacking in procedural fairness and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The decision to initiate criminal action appears to have been taken with a pre-determined mindset rather than on the basis of an objective evaluation of facts. 23. Insofar as the petitioners in WPS No. 7604 of 2024 (Branch Managers) are concerned, the material on record indicates that they had no role in the decision-making process relating to engagement of daily wagers and had merely acted in compliance with directions issued by the competent authority. Even otherwise, Clause ‘ ’ ख of the impugned letter dated 28.06.2024 directing action against them and holding them guilty has been issued without conducting any independent enquiry or affording an opportunity of hearing. 24. Having considered the entire facts situation of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned enquiry report, communication dated 20.06.2024 and order dated 28.06.2024 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 25. As an upshot : ➢ WPC No. 3369 of 2024 (filed by Administrator) & WPS No. 6016 of 2024 & WPS No. 6042 of 2024 (fled by CEOs) are allowed; and the enquiry report, communication dated 20.06.2024 and order dated 28.06.2024 are hereby quashed. ➢ WPS No. 7604 of 2024 (filed by the Branch Managers) is 22 also allowed to the extent that Clause ‘ ’ ख of the impugned letter dated 28.06.2024, insofar as it relates to the petitioners therein, is hereby quashed, as relief sought by the petitioners. Consequently, all proceedings initiated pursuant thereto against the petitioners (Branch Managers) also stand set aside. ➢ It is, however, made clear that it shall be open for the competent authority to proceed against the Branch Managers in accordance with law, if so advised, by following due process and adhering to the principles of natural justice. 26. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar/ Gowri