JUDGMENT
Garg, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 19.5.1998 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 19.8.1997 (Annex. 5) passed by the Secretary, Cooperative Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (respondent No. 1) by which the respondent No. 1 under revisional power allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent No. 4 Sadul Sahar Kray Vikray Sahakari Samiti Limited under Section 128 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1965”) and set aside the order dated 9.5.1996 (Annex. 4) passed by the Addl. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur (respondent No. 3) by which the respondent No. 3 allowed the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 128 of the Act of 1965 and set aside the order dated 1.4.1988 (Annex. 1) by which the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service under Rule 244 (2) (1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “the RSR”), be quashed and set aside.
2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows :-
The petitioner was initially appointed with the respondent No. 4 Sadul Sahar Kray Vikray Sahakari Samiti Limited on the post of Manager on 15.10.1960.
The further case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 is a Society registered under the Act of 1965 and the service conditions of the employees of the Society are governed by Rule 41 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1966”) and in the Rules of 1966, there is no provision for compulsory retirement of employee serving in the Cooperative Societies.
The further case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 through its order dated 1.4.1988 (Annex. 1) ordered compulsory retirement of the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 244(2)(1) of the RSR and according to the petitioner, that order Annex. 1 is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional as in the Rules of 1966, there is no provision for compulsory retirement and as per the service conditions, the petitioner could not have been retired till attaining the age of 60 years.
Aggrieved from the said order of compulsory retirement dated 1.4.1988 (Annex. 1), the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 704/88 and the same was withdrawn by the petitioner and thus, it was dismissed as withdrawn through order dated 18.7.1988 passed by the Division Bench of this Court.
Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision petition under Section 128 of the Act of 1965 before the Addl. Registrar (Appeals), Jaipur challenging the order of compulsory retirement Annex. 1 dated 1.4.1988 and a copy of which is marked as Annex. 2 and thereafter, that matter was transferred to the Addl. Registrar (Appeals), Jodhpur.
The further case of the petitioner is that the order of compulsory retirement dated 1.4.1988 (Annex. 1) was passed in pursuance of the enquiry conducted by the respondent No. 4 against him initially under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the CCA Rules”) and later on converted under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules and after conclusion of that enquiry, the petitioner was awarded punishment of censure through order Annex. 3 dated 13.2.1987.
The further case of the petitioner is that the revision petition filed by him under Section 128 of the Act of 1965 was allowed by the respondent No. 3 Addl. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur through order Annex. 4 dated 9.5.1996 and the order of compulsory retirement Annex. 1 dated 1.4.1988 passed against him was set aside.
The further case of the petitioner is that against the order dated 9.5.1996 (Annex. 4) passed by the respondent No. 3 Addl. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur, another revision petition was filed by the respondent No. 4 under the provisions of Section 128 of the Act of 1965 and the same was allowed by the respondent No. 1 Secretary, Cooperative Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur through order dated 19.8,1997 (Annex. 5) and the order of the respondent No. 3 Addl. Registrar dated 9.5.1996 (Annex. 4) was set aside holding inter-alia that the respondent No. 3 Addl. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur had no jurisdiction to hear the case under Section 128 of the Act of 1965.
In this writ petition, the order Annex. 5 dated 19.8.1997 passed by the respondent No. 1 has been challenged by the petitioner on various grounds and the main ground is that once the Addl. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur (respondent No. 3) has exercised the revisional power under Section 128 of the Act of 1965 delegated by the State Government on Registrar, Cooperative Societies, then the order Annex. 4 dated 9.5.1996 passed by the respondent No. 3 Addl. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur under Section 128 of the Act of 1965 is to be treated as an order passed by the State Government and, therefore, subsequent revision filed by the respondent No. 4 against the order Annex. 4 dated 9.5.1996 is not maintainable and thus, the order Annex. 5 dated 19.8.1997 passed on it by the respondent No. 1 is per se illegal and without jurisdiction. Hence, this petition with the prayer as stated above.
A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and it has been contended by the respondents that it is wrong to contend that RSR are not applicable to the employees of the respondents No. 4 and 5 and in this regard, it was further submitted by the respondents that a meeting of the Board of Directors was called for on 4.5.1977 under the Chairmanship of Shri Hari Singh and in the said meeting, a resolution No. 9(5) was passed in which it was thought to make applicable the RSR in respect of the employees of the respondent No. 4 and a copy of that Resolution is marked as Annex. R/1 and on the basis of that Resolution Annex. R/1, RSR were made applicable in respect of the employees of the respondent No. 4. Not only this, a Notification dated 3.8.1980 (Annex. R/2) was issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jaipur by which the CCA Rules were made applicable in respect of the employees of the respondent No. 4. Thus, from perusing Annex. R/l and Annex. R/2, it is clear that RSR and CCA Rules are fully applicable to the employees of the respondent No. 4.
At this juncture, it may be stated here that through order Annex. 3 dated 13.2.1987, penalty of censure was imposed against the petitioner in the enquiry under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules and that order Annex. 3 has become final meaning thereby CCA Rules and RSR were fully applicable in the case of the petitioner.
Thus, the preliminary objection that has been taken by the petitioner against the order of compulsory retirement Annex. 1 that RSR are not applicable in the case of the petitioner stands rejected.
On revisional power, it has been submitted by the respondents that the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 128 of the Act of 1965 before the respondent No. 3 Addl. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur was not maintainable and therefore, the order Annex. 4 dated 9.5.1996 passed on it by the respondent No. 3 was without jurisdiction and thus, it was rightly set side by the respondent No. 1 through order Annex. 5 dated 19.8.1997 and thus, there is no question of second revision as posed by the petitioner in this petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record.
4. For convenience, Section 128 of the Act of 1965 is quoted here :-
“128. Power of the Government and Registrar to call for proceeding of subordinate officers and to pass orders thereon.- (1) The State Government and the Registrar may call for and examine the record of any inquiry or the proceedings of any other matter, of any officer subordinate to them except those referred to in Section 125, for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed, and as to the regularity of the proceedings of such officer. If in any case, it appears to the State Government or the Registrar, that any decision or order or proceedings so called for should be modified, annulled or reversed, the State Government or the registrar, as the case may be, may after giving persons affected thereby an opportunity of being heard, pass such order thereon as it or he thinks just :
Provided that every application to the Registrar or the Government for the exercise of the powers under this section shall be preferred within ninety days from the date on which the proceedings, decision or order to which the application relates was communicated to the applicant :
Provided further that the Registrar shall not exercise the powers under this section in case in which an appeal lies to him under this Act.
Explanation:- For the purpose of this sub-section the Assistant Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Joint Registrar exercising all or any of the powers of the Registrar under this Act shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Registrar.
(2) Pending the hearing under Sub-section (1), the Government or the Registrar may pass such interlocutory order as it or he thinks fit to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated.”
5. There is no dispute on the point that in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act of 1965, the State Government conferred on the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, all powers of the Registrar to hear and dispose of revision petitions under Section 128 of the said Act through Notification No. F.4(7) Co-op/I/65 dated 8th February, 1974.
6. In this respect, it is made clear that the State Government did not confer or delegate its own power either to the Registrar or Additional Registrar, but the powers of Registrar were conferred or delegated on Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies to hear and dispose of revision petitions under Section 128 of the Act of 1965.
7. Therefore, the misconception that has arisen in the mind of the petitioner that the State Government had divested its own revisional power to Additional Registrar is palpably wrong one. In other words, what has been delegated by the State Government is the power of the Registrar to the Additional Registrar and not the power of itself to hear the revision under Section 128 of the Act of 1965.
8. There is also no dispute on the point that first revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 128 of the Act of 1965 was heard and disposed of by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur (respondent No. 3) through order Annex. 4 dated 9.5.1996 and by that order Annex. 4, the respondent No. 3 allowed the revision petition of the petitioner and set aside the order Annex. 1 dated 1.4.1988 by which the petitioner was compulsorily retired.
9. There is also no dispute on the point that another revision petition filed by the respondent No. 4 under Section 128 of the Act of 1965 was heard and disposed of by the respondent No. 1 Secretary, Cooperative Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur through order Annex. 5 dated 19.8.1997 and by that order Annex. 5, the respondent No. 1 allowed the revision petition of the respondent No. 4 and set aside the order Annex. 4 dated 9.5.1996 passed by the respondent No. 3 Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur.
10. Thus, two revision petitions were heard and disposed of under the provisions of Section 128 of the Act of 1965 one by Addl. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur (respondent No. 3) and another by the Secretary, Cooperative Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (respondent No. 1).
11. The question for consideration is whether the respondent No. 1 Secretary, Cooperative Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur was competent to hear and dispose of the revision petition filed by the respondent No. 4 under the provisions of Section 128 of the Act of 1965 through order Annex. 5 dated 19.8.1997 or not.
12. The opening words of Section 128 of the Act of 1965 start from the words that the State Government and the Registrar may call for and examine the record of any inquiry or the proceedings of any other matter of any officer subordinate to them. The Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur (respondent No. 3) undoubtedly is an officer subordinate to the respondent No. 1 Secretary, Cooperative Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
13. In my considered opinion, the scope of revision under Section 128;of the Act of 1965 is not limited to orders and decision only but it is extended to the record of any inquiry or the proceedings also. The powers are conferred on the Registrar as -well as the State Government but the cases in which revision before the Cooperative Tribunal is competent, they are excluded from the jurisdiction of the Registrar and the State Government both.
14. It may be stated here that if any order is passed by the Registrar or Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies in exercise of delegated power, even the State Government in such cases is competent to hear and dispose of revision petitions.
15. A bare perusal of Section 128 of the Act of 1965 does not reveal that any order passed by the Registrar under this section shall not be further revised be the State Government. It, therefore, follows that the State Government shall be competent to revise orders of Registrar or Additional Registrar passed in revisional jurisdiction even.
16. To clarify the above position furthermore, it may be stated here that the test is whether the two bodies with concurrent revisional jurisdiction are equal in rank. If one is inferior to the other, the prohibition does not apply. The language of Section 128 of the Act of 1965 is general and is wide enough to cover an order of revision passed by the Registrar is exercise of his power under the same section. The section takes in all orders passed by an officer subordinate to the authorities attached therein. The scope of the section is not limited to original orders passed by officers subordinate either to the Registrar or to the Government. There is no reason why a restriction should be imported into that section. There is nothing to indicate in the section which invested the order passed by the Registrar with any finality so as to operate as a bar on the Government exercising is revisional jurisdiction.
17. Thus, the Section 128 of the Act of 1965 is so worded as to confer wide powers on the Government to revise the orders of any officer who is subordinate to it and therefore, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 128 of the Act of 1965, the State Government is competent to revise the orders passed by the Registrar or Additional Registrar under Section 128 of the Act of 1965.
18. Thus, it is held that the State Government is competent to hear and dispose of the revision petition filed under Section 128 of the Act of 1965 against the order passed by the officer subordinate to it i.e. Registrar or Additional Registrar under the provisions of Section 128 and the State Government while exercising that revisional power under Section 128 can revise the orders passed by the Registrar or Additional Registrar under Section 128 of the Act of 1965.
19. As already stated above, the State Government did not delegate its own power, but the State Government conferred the powers of the Registrar on the Additional Registrar to hear and dispose of revision petitions under Section 128 of the Act of 1965.
20. Hence, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the second revision filed by the respondent No. 4 before the respondent No. 1 is not maintainable, stands rejected. .
21. So far as the ruling of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5017/90 (decided on 4.8.1999) is concerned, in my considered opinion, looking to the law, as discussed above, and keeping in mind that the Stale Government did not confer its own revisional power to anybody, but the powers of Registrar were conferred on the Additional Registrar, that ruling stands distinguished.
22. So far as the authority of this Court in Municipal Board, Nokha v. State of Raj. and Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2593/91 decided on 1.11.1993 is concerned, that authority would also not be helpful to the petitioner as in that case, the provisions of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 were interpreted while the present case pertained to the provisions of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965.
23. So far as the Full Bench decision of this Court in Jagan Singh v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan and Anr., AIR 1980 Raj. 1, is concerned, that decision would also not be helpful to the petitioner as in the present case it has been clearly held that the State Government is competent to hear and dispose of the revision petition filed under Section 128 of the Act of 1965 against the orders passed by the Registrar or Additional Registrar under the provisions of Section 128 of the Act of 1965.
24. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. No order as to costs.