IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.11621 OF 2018 (S-RES) BETWEEN SRI. MALLARAJU S/O. KARIYAPPA, MAJOR, FORMER SALES PERSON, HOPCOMS, MANDYA, R/O. KT-621, RAJAMMA, 13TH CROSS, CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGAR, MANDYA CITY-571 401.
(BY SRI AMRUTHESH N P, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE HORTICULTURE PRODUCE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD., (KHF)., ... PETITIONER BINNY MILL ROAD, BANGALORE-560 023.
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR MANDYA DISTRICT HORTICULTURE PRODUCE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING & PROCESSING SOCIETY LTD., D.C. OFFICE ROAD, MANDYA CITY-571 401.
(BY SMT M S PRATHIMA, AGA FOR R1 SRI DESHRAJ P, ADVOCATE FOR R3 R2 SERVED) ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER REPRESENTATIONS AS PER ANNEXURES-C, D, G, H, J, K & L BY ISSUING A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner herein was working as salesman with the respondent No.3 - Mandya District Horticulture Produce Co- operative Marketing & Processing Society Ltd., (for short ‘the Society). A departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and having found that the charges against the petitioner stood proved, the petitioner was dismissed from services on 30.07.2012. The petitioner approached the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (for short ‘JRCS’) invoking Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. By order dated 15.09.2014, the JRCS allowed the petition and set aside the order of dismissal passed by respondent No.3 herein. The respondent No.3 - Society filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal questioning the order passed by the JRCS. The appeal also came to be dismissed by order dated 23.08.2017.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of the order passed by the Tribunal upholding the order passed by the JRSC and inspite of several representations being made by the petitioners, the respondent No.3 has not reinstated the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that in the order passed by the JRCS there is no direction to reinstate the petitioner. Similar is the position in the order passed by the Tribunal. Nevertheless, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 in all fairness submits that the order of dismissal having been set aside, the consequence is that the petitioner ought to be reinstated.
4. In the light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent No.3 was duty bound to reinstate the petitioner once the order of dismissal was set aside by a competent authority. Even other-wise, the order of the competent authority was further contested before the Tribunal and the Tribunal is upheld the order passed by the JRCS.
5. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed.
The respondent No.3 is hereby specifically directed to reinstate the petitioner in terms of the order passed by the JRCS, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
KLY/ SD/- JUDGE