Cooperative Societies Act| Officer-In-Charge Being Ordered To Officiate In Superior Post Is Entitled To Perform All Functions: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court reiterated that an officer-in-charge being ordered to officiate in a superior post is entitled to perform all functions.
The Dharwad Bench reiterated thus in Writ Petitions in which the issue under consideration was related to the disqualification of a person.
A Single Bench of Justice C.M. Poonacha observed, “Notwithstanding the factual matrix of the submissions that have been made, as noticed above, with regard to legal question as to whether an officer-in-charge, who has been ordered to officiate in another post (albeit that of a superior officer), where he is required to discharge functions/duties of the post to which he has been placed in-charge of, it is clear that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopalji Khanna has considered the said aspect of the matter and held that the officer is entitled to perform all functions.”
Senior Advocate Jaykumar S. and Advocate Mallikarjunaswamy Hiremath appeared for the Petitioners while Additional Advocate General (AAG) J.M. Gangadhar and Advocate A.P. Hegde Janmane appeared for the Respondents.
Facts of the Case -
Pursuant to a communication addressed by the Petitioner to the Assistant Commissioner, an Order was passed under Section 29(c) of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (ARCS), disqualifying the Respondent. The said Respondent filed Appeals under Section 106(3) of the Act and the said Appeals were required to be heard by the Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (DRCS). Since the said post of DRCS was vacant, the ARCS being the officiating/in-charge officer vide an Order, granted stay of the Order of disqualification.
Being aggrieved, the Writ Petitions were filed before the High Court. The primary contention put forth by the Petitioner was that the ARCS not being the rank of a Deputy Registrar who is the appellate authority under Section 106(3) of the Act, was not empowered to pass the Order staying the disqualification Order. Hence, the Petitioners sought for allowing of the Writ Petitions and granting of the relief.
The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, noted, “As noticed above, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopalji Khanna has been followed by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of A.Savariar and a co-ordinate Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Sugunapri wherein it has been held that when an officer posted as in-charge of a post, he discharges the functions/duties of the said post, including statutory functions.”
The Court said that in this case, it is not the contention of the Petitioner that to hold the post of DRCS, any specific technical expertise is required and the said post can be held only by a person possessing any specific educational/qualifying criteria, which the ARCS does not possess.
“In view of the factual and legal position as noticed above, the contention put forth by the petitioner in the above present writ petitions does not merit consideration”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions.
Cause Title- Prakash Ramachandra Hegde v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC-D:17962)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Jaykumar S., Advocates Mallikarjunaswamy Hiremath, and Kaveri Hiremath.
Respondents: AAG J.M. Gangadhar, AGA Mala D. Bhute, and Advocate A.P. Hegde Janmane.
