About 50 Years v. State of Chhattisgarh

:- Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate. :- Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer. :- Mr. Abhinav Tiwari, Advocate, appears on behalf of Mr. Manish Upadhyay, Advocate. 2 WPS No. 385 of 2020 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board

28.07.2026

The petitioner was working with Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Maro (for brevity “Samiti”)/ respondent No.4 herein. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operatives Societies, Bemetara, by order dated 27.12.2019 directed the said Samiti / respondent No.4 herein to terminate the petitioner’s services in light of Clause 16.5 of the Service Rules and accordingly, respondent No.4 terminated the services of the petitioner against which the instant petition has been preferred.

Mr. Aniket Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that it is for the competent authority to pass the order in accordance with law, but the Deputy Registrar has no jurisdiction to direct respondent No.4 to terminate the services of the petitioner, as such, impugned order is unsustainable and bad in law. In support of his submission he would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots’ Association of India (ALPAI) and others v. Director General of Civil Aviation and others 1 .

Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, learned State Counsel, and Mr. Abhinav Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.4, would oppose 1 (2011) 5 SCC 435 3 WPS No. 385 of 2020 the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and support the impugned order.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records minutely.

Admittedly, power and jurisdiction to exercise the power under Clause16.5 of the Service Rules is vested with the Board of Directors of the Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samiti. However, in the present case, the Deputy Registrar directed the Samiti to terminate the services of the petitioner in exercise of its power and, in turn, without applying application of mind, respondent No.4 terminated the services of the petitioner. In this regard, paras 26 to 28 of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots’ Association of India (ALPAI) (supra) is noticeable which state as under:- “26. The contention was raised before the High Court that the Circular dated 29-5-2008 has been issued by the authority having no competence, thus cannot be enforced. It is a settled legal proposition that the authority which has been conferred with the competence under the statute alone can pass the order. No other person, even a superior authority, can interfere with the functioning of the statutory authority. In a democratic set-up like ours, persons 4 WPS No. 385 of 2020 occupying key positions are not supposed to mortgage their discretion, volition and decision- making authority and be prepared to give way to carry out commands having no sanctity in law. Thus, if any decision is taken by a statutory authority at the behest or on suggestion of a person who has no statutory role to play, the same would be patently illegal. (Vide Purtabpore Co. Ltd. v. Cane Commr. of