ORDER
S.S. Jha, J.
1. Petitioner is an employee of respondent No. 1-Bank. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order, Annexure P-2, dated 16-10-97 in anticipation of departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Immediately after the order of suspension, the petitioner filed a dispute under Section 55(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bhind. He also moved an application under Section 67 (1) of the Act for injunction. The application was rejected by the Deputy Registrar. Against the order of rejection an application under Section 67 the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 80 of the Act before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue has passed ex parte order and stayed the order of suspension.
2. After constitution of Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Tribunal at Bhopal, the matter was considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has dismissed the revision.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of Tribunal is without jurisdiction and the suspension cannot be continued for inordinately long time. The finding of the Tribunal that the suspension is not a punishment is incorrect. The petitioner was placed under suspension in the year 1997 for the charges which are not proved against him. As such, the order of suspension is bad in law.
4. Only question involved in the case is whether any order on an application under Section 67(1) of the Act could be passed. Section 67 (1) of the Act is reproduced below:–
“67. Procedure for settlement of disputes and power of Registrar, his nominee or board of nominees.– (1) The Registrar or his nominee or board of nominees shall have the power of making interlocutory orders including grant of a temporary injunction. In exercising this power, the Registrar or his nominee or board of nominees, as the case may be, shall follow the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), for the purpose of making such orders and granting an injunction.”
On bare perusal of the section, it is apparent that the Registrar or his nominee
shall have the power of making interlocutory orders including grant of a temporary injunction. In exercising this power, the procedure laid down in Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall be followed for the purpose of making such orders and granting an injunction.
5. For the purpose of granting an injunction provisions of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure are required to be considered. In Order XXXIX Rule 2 (2), the proviso has been inserted by Madhya Pradesh State Amendment Act (No. 29 of 1984) dated 14-8-1984. The proviso is reproduced below:–
“Provided that no such injunction shall be granted-
(a) where no perpetual injunction could be granted in view of the provisions of Section 38 and Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (No. 47 of 1963); or
(b) to stay, the operation of an order for transfer, suspension, reduction in rank, compulsory retirement, dismissal, removal or otherwise termination of service of, or taking charge from, any person appointed to public service and post in connection with the affairs of the State including any employee of any Company or Corporation owned or controlled by the State Government; or
(c) to stay, any disciplinary proceeding, pending or intended or, the effect of any adverse entry against any person appointed to public service and post in connection with the affairs of the State including any employee of the Company owned or controlled by the State Government; or
(d) to restrain any election; or
(e) to restrain any auction intended to be made or, to restrain the effect of any auction made by the Government, or to stay the proceedings for the recovery of any dues recoverable as land revenue unless adequate security is furnished;
and any order for injunction granted in contravention of these provisions shall be void.”
Thus, on bare perusal of proviso, no such injunction shall be granted to stay operation of an order for transfer, suspension, reduction in rank, compulsory retirement, dismissal, removal or otherwise termination of service of, or taking charge from, any person appointed to public service and post in connection with the affairs of the State including any employee of the Company or Corporation owned or controlled by the State Government. Under Section 67 of the Act, there is no power to grant injunction against the order of suspension.
6. Thus, the application for stay as filed under Section 67 of the Act itself was misconceived. Order of suspension could not be stayed, as departmental enquiry was contemplated against the petitioner. The Deputy
Registrar, Cooperative Societies, has recorded a finding that there is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner.
7. Division Bench of this Court in the case of K.C. Ansari Vs. S.P. Agarwal, reported in 1989 MPLJ 36, was considering the violation of the order of injunction passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, restraining the election. The Division Bench referred to the judgment in the case of Nawabkhan Abbaskhan Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1974 SC 1471, and has considered the observation in para 12 of the judgment.
8. The only question involved in the case is whether injunction can be granted against the order of suspension ?
9. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State Amendment relates to the affairs of the State including any Company or Corporation owned and controlled by the State Government. It was, therefore, contended that the respondent-Bank is constituted under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and is neither the Company or Corporation. Therefore, the proviso will not be applicable to the Cooperative Societies.
10. Section 2 (c-ii) of the Act defines ‘Central Co-operative Bank’. The definition is reproduced below:–
“2 (c-ii). “Central Co-operative Bank” means a resource society registered or deemed to be registered under this Act, which is either licensed under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) or permitted by the Reserve Bank of India to do banking business till so licensed, and
(i) has area of operation confined to part of the State; and
(ii) has as its principal object, the creation of funds and the obtaining credit, goods or services for and providing credit, goods or services as loan to Co-operative Societies affiliated to it for agriculture, industrial and other allied purposes.”
The Act has also defined “Company” in Section 2 (c-iii). The societies are registered under Section 9 of the Act by the Registrar of the Societies. The Registrar is empowered to direct amendment in Bye-laws of the societies. All the Co-operative Societies constituted under the Act are under the control of the Registrar. Under Section 49-C of the Act the Government has power to give directions to the societies in public interest and similarly under Section 49-D Registrar has power to issue directions and to make regulations. Section 52-Aof the Act provides that where State Government has subscribed to the share capital of or has guaranteed the re-payment of principal of and payment of interest on loans and advances given to marketing or processing society to the extent of Rupees fifty lakhs or more; or where the subscription of the State Government in the share capital of a marketing or processing society exceeds fifty per cent of its total paid capital, then the State Government has power of removal of the committee of the society and constitute a Managing Board. Under Section 53 of the Act, the Registrar of the committee has power to
supersede the committee and appoint an Administrator of the society. The Registrar has power to enforce performance of obligation upon the society. Chapter VI provides that the Registrar shall audit or cause to be audited by a person authorised by him in writing by general or special order in this behalf, the accounts of every society once at least every year. Section 59 empowers Registrar to hold an enquiry of the society. Chapter VIII relates to liquidation of the society, and appointment of Liquidator in the society by the Registrar. Under Section 95 of the Act the State Government is empowered to make rules for the whole or any part of the State and for any society or class of societies.
11. Thus, the respondent-Bank is under the control of the State Government. The ‘Co-operative Society’ is a Corporation, as has been held in the case of Daman Singh and others etc. Vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1985 SC 973, wherein it is held that under Article 31A(1)(c) of the Constitution of India, the cooperative societies registered under the Act are the Corporations as commonly understood.
12. In the case of S.S. Dhanoa Vs. Municipal Corporation, Delhi and others, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1395, it is held that Corporation is an artificial being created by law having a legal entity entirely separate and distinct from the individuals who compose it with the capacity of continuous existence and succession, notwithstanding changes in its membership. In addition, it possesses the capacity as such legal entity of taking, holding and conveying property, entering into contracts, suing and being sued, and exercising such other powers and privileges as may be conferred on it by the law of its creation just as natural person may.
13. Thus, from aforesaid discussion, the cooperative society is a corporation. On considering the provisions of the Act and the rules framed under the Act, the respondent No. 1-Society is under the control of the State Government. Since cooperative society is a corporation and is under the control of the Government, the State Amendment proviso to sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the co-operative society. As such, no injunction can be issued restraining suspension. The Cooperative Tribunal and Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies have not committed any error in rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 67 (1) of the Act. So long as enquiry is contemplated, no finding can be recorded by the authority regarding nature of the order. The order of suspension is not a punishment, but is a step before holding an enquiry.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the suspension cannot be continued for a long period.
15. The contention of petitioner is not correct in the facts of the present case, in view of the interim order passed by the Board of Revenue without considering the scope of Section 67 (1) of the Act the petitioner’s suspension
remained stayed for a long time. As such, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been placed under suspension for a long period.
16. The employee should or should not continue in his office during the period of enquiry is a matter to be assessed by the authority concerned and when the management has arrived at the conclusion on the basis of material in their possession that the employee could not be innocent then no conclusion to the contrary would be drawn by the Court at the interlocutory stage, has been held in the case of U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others Vs. Sanjiv Rajan, reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 483.
17. In the case of O.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1987 SC 2257, it is held that the order of suspension of a Government servant does not put an end to his service. The real effect of order of suspension is that the employee continues to be a member of service but is not permitted to work and during the period of suspension he is paid only some allowance – generally called subsistence allowance. It is further held that the enquiry should be concluded within a reasonable time, otherwise it will have a penal significance. The long continuation of suspension is depricated.
18. In the case of P.L. Shah Vs. Union of India and another, reported in (1989) 1 SCC 546, it is held in para 6 that the order suspension is not an order imposing punishment on a person found to be guilty. It is an order made against him before he is found guilty to ensure smooth disposal of the proceeding initiated against him.
19. Thus, the Tribunal & the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies have not committed any error in rejecting the application for injunction for revocation of the suspension. It appears that on account of long drawn litigation by the petitioner the enquiry could not be proceeded further. It is, therefore, expected that respondent No. 1 shall proceed with the enquiry against the petitioner expeditiously so that the petitioner should not remain under suspension for a long time. It is expected that the respondent-Bank shall take all possible steps to conclude the enquiry against the petitioner in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
20. Petition has no merit and is dismissed without any order as to costs.
21. Writ Petition dismissed.