Judgment:
R.S. Mohite, J.
1. Heard Shri Madkholkar, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Kankale, AGP for respondent No. 1 and Shri Ingley, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges and seeks to quash and set aside his order of dismissal dated 4-4-1987 and further order dated 14-8-1987 passed in appeal by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Society, Amravati, rejecting the petitioner's appeal against his order of dismissal.
3. The facts of the case are as under :
(a) On 24-12-1968, the petitioner was appointed as a Group Secretary.
(b) On 24-12-1981, the petitioner was promoted as a Head Clerk.
(c) On 9-9-1986, the charge sheet was framed against the petitioner, containing four charges.
(d) On 20-11-1990, the petitioner filed his reply to the charges as framed against him in the charge sheet.
(e) After due enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report in which only charge numbers 1 and 2 were held to be proved and charge numbers 3 and 4 were held to be not proved.
(f) On 14-8-1987, the appellate authority i.e. Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Amravati, rejected an appeal filed by the petitioner against his order of dismissal which had been filed under Rule 18 of the bye laws of Akola Zilla Supervision Co-operative Society Limited, Akola, read with Rule 18 of the Service Rules for the posts of Group Secretary, framed by the said society.
(g) On 9-11-1987, the present writ petition came to be filed impugning two orders as mentioned hereinabove.
4. The two charges which were held to be proved against the petitioner bythe Enquiry Officer were in substance as under :
(i) That the petitioner had violated rule 26(B)(3) of the Service Rules framed by the Society for its Group Secretaries. As per the details given under this head of charge, this violation had occurred because on 7-3-1979, the petitioner had made a written application for showing his qualification as B.A. (IInd class) in his service book as well as in the Seniority list. That, similarly, while seeking appointment to the post of Group Secretary at District Level, the petitioner had given false information relating to his qualification. The charge mentioned that by showing false qualification, respondent No. 2 - Society had been cheated and the act was dishonest and, therefore, there was a violation of Rule 26(B)(3).
(ii) That, the petitioner had violated Rule 23 of the aforesaid rules because he had stood for elections of the Gram Panchayat of Village Mouza Ghusar, Taluka and District - Akola.
5. Before we proceed further, it is necessary to reproduce the true translation of the concerned rules, which is as under :
Rule 26(B)(3) - In respect of societies in the control of the Secretary, to misappropriate or steal money, transactions or property or conduct himself dishonestly.
Rule 23 - That the Group Secretary should not take part in any political programme.
6. Insofar as the first charge is concerned, a plain look at the charge does not indicate that the petitioner had obtained any advantage by showing his degree as B.A. (IInd class). The allegation is that he sought to obtain an entry in the service book and in the seniority list. The charge does not indicate whether such an entry was actually made on the basis of such representation. There is nothing on record to indicate that such qualification was utilised to obtain any advantage. In fact, the appellate authority has come to categorical finding that there was no intention to deceive the society. In spite of coming to such conclusion, the appellate authority has concluded that it is the look out of the society to decide as to what type of punishment should be given to the appellant for mistake and misrepresentation he has done. Once it is held that there was no intention to deceive the society then, in my opinion, the charge would not have fallen under Rule 26(B)(3) of the Rules, as required ingredients of the said rule i.e. conducting himself dishonestly, does not survive. A mere mistake does not fall within four corners of the said rule.
7. Insofar as charge No. 2 is concerned, standing for an election of a village Panchayat is a statutory right of the Citizen, provided he is a person who is qualified. The activities of the village panchayat are developmental in nature as can be seen from the preamble of the Village Panchayats Act. This point is no more res integra. Standing for such an election is not a political activity. This has been held by the Division Bench of this Court while deciding Special Civil Application No. 1833 of 1975 decided on 6-4-1979. Standing for such an election is a statutory right of the citizen. Merely standing and elected to a village Panchayat cannot said to be participating in the political programme within the meaning of Rule 23.
8. In the circumstances, I am inclined to make rule absolute in the matter. However, taking into account the fact that the petitioner has not worked duringthe pendency of the appeal and this petition was filed in the year 1987, I am notinclined to grant any backwages.
9. In the result, rule in the writ petition is made partly absolute. Theimpugned judgments and orders are set aside and respondent No. 2 is directed toreinstate the petitioner without any backwages. In the facts and circumstances ofthis case, there shall be no order as to costs. Certified copy expedited.