Zila Sah. Kendriya Bank Mard.Jagdalpur v. Jeevan Lal Verma And ORS.
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 3832 of 2011 Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Jagdalpur, Through - The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) ----Petitioner
Versus
1.
Jeevan Lal Verma, S/o Late H.R. Verma, Terminated LAMPS Manager, Sambalpur at present R/o Old Shikshak Colony, Tilda, Post- Newra, Tehsil - Tilda, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2.
The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, C.G. Raipur 3.
The Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, C.G. Raipur 4.
The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, C.G. Raipur ---- Respondents/non-applicants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Shri Keshav Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Shri Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. For Respondents No. 2 to 4 : Shri Aditya Sharma, Panel Lawyer. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 23/08/2018 (1) This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 31.08.2010 passed by Registrar, Co-operative Societies affirming the order passed by Joint Registrar and the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operaive Societies reinstating the respondent No. 1/employee without backwages.
(2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that impugned is bad and unsustainable in law, which is liable to be set aside. (3) Per contra, counsel for respondent No. 1 would support the impugned order.
(4) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned with utmost circumspection.
(5) Three courts have concurrently held that termination of respondent No.1 is in violation of principles of natural justice as per the relevant rules and regulations, which is a finding of fact based on material available on record, which is neither perverse nor illegal. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the order impugned warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (6) The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge D/-