Registrar Has Jurisdiction Over Removal Of Secretary Of Co op Society Being Statutory Officer : Gauhati HC

Background Facts

The appellant was appointed as Secretary of the Bikrampur Co-operative Society after a Board resolution was passed. However, within two months, the Board adopted another resolution which cancelled his appointment. Further a fresh recruitment process was initiated. The cancellation was based on certain complaints against the appellant.

Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant approached the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 2007. The Registrar found that he was removed without affording any opportunity of hearing. Further the statutory provisions governing conduct of meetings had been violated. Consequently, the Registrar set aside the Board's decision and restored the appellant to the post.

The order of Registrar was challenged by the Society. A Single Judge set aside the Registrar's order on the ground that the dispute was purely between an employer and employee. Therefore it fell outside the Registrar's jurisdiction. Aggrieved by this judgment, the appellant filed the writ appeal before the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court.

Similarly, in a connected matter, the Secretary of Rajyuswarpur Co-operative Society was removed by a Board resolution on the ground that a qualified graduate secretary was required whereas the employee was only a matriculate. Certain allegations were also made against him. The Secretary approached the Registrar. The Registrar granted a stay of the resolution. The order of registrar was challenged. A Single Judge allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the Secretary filed an appeal before the Division Bench.

It was argued by the appellants that the Single Judge erroneously treated the dispute as arising out of a purely private contract of employment. It was submitted that the Secretary is not a mere employee but occupies a dual position as both an office bearer and the full time employee.

The appellant contended that the Registrar, being vested with the supervisory authority is competent to examine the legality of the actions of the Board where such action suffers from jurisdictional infirmity, such as violation of statutory provision, absence of quorum and breach of principles of natural justice. It was further argued that if the view taken by the Single Judge is sustained, then Chief Executive would be left without any remedy against an arbitrary order of removal.

It was submitted that the Registrar is entrusted with supervisory, corrective, and adjudicatory functions to ensure that Co-operative societies function in accordance with law. It was contended that Registrar can decide the dispute between the Chief Executive and the Board. A Secretary is not merely an employee but also an office bearer and the Principal Executive functionary, responsible for the day-to-day administration of the society. Therefore, disputes relating to his removal cannot be equated with ordinary service dispute of employees.

It was further submitted that interpretation adopted by the Single Judge would render the Registrar powerless to correct even patent illegality, thereby enabling arbitrary exercise of power by the Board without any effective check. It was argued that the supervisory role of the Registrar is integral to maintaining the integrity and accountability of a cooperative institution.

On the other hand, it was argued by the respondents that the Act clearly vests the power of appointment and removal of the Chief Executive in the Board without any requirement of prior approval or subsequent ratification by the Registrar. It was submitted that any interference by the Registrar would constitute an unwarranted intrusion into the autonomy of the cooperative society, which is intended to function as a democratic institution governed by its elected representatives.

The respondents further contended that the Secretary is an office bearer as well as a full-time employee of the society. The relationship between the Board and the Secretary is one of employer and employee. The dispute arising from termination of such employment is a matter of private law and does not attract the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Registrar.

It was further contended that the Registrar had acted beyond the bounds of his statutory authority in setting aside the resolution of the Board and directing reinstatement of the secretary.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was observed by the Division Bench that the roles of Secretary and Chief Executive were confined into a single institutional office with dual character, both administrative and functional. It was further observed that the statute attributes a dual and composite character to the office of the secretary. It does not treat the secretary as a mere employee in the ordinary sense. Therefore, secretary is a full-time employee for administrative purposes and also an office bearer embedded in the society's governance structure. It reflects the centrality of the office of the Chief Executive/Secretary in the functioning of the co-operative society.

It was held that dispute concerning the removal of such a functionary cannot be equated with a routine service dispute of a subordinate employee. It has a direct impact upon the management, continuity and functional integrity of the society.

It was further held by the Division Bench that the fact that employee disciplinary matters are excluded from being referred to the Registrar does not mean the Registrar has no jurisdiction. This exclusion applies only to ordinary employees, not to the Chief Executive.

It was observed that the statute treats the secretary as an office bearer not as an employee. Further considering its dual role and the functions of the Chief Executive, this exclusion cannot be applied blindly by treating the secretary as just an employee of a private board. It was held that the statute attributes a dual and composite character to the office of the Secretary, who is a full-time employee for administrative purposes as well as an office bearer in the society's governance structure.

It was further observed that in the event of a dispute between the Chief Executive and the Board in any matter, the decision of the Registrar shall be binding on the Board. Further, a dispute regarding the legality of removal from office falls within its ambit.

It was concluded that the Single Judge had erred in holding that the distinct statutory office of Secretary was a purely private contract of employment.

It was held by the Division Bench that the Secretary of a cooperative society is not a mere employee but a statutory office bearer. It was further held that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes relating to his removal under the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 2007.

Consequently, the judgment of the Single Judge was set aside by the Division Bench. Further, the order of the Registrar restoring the appellant was reinstated.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ appeals filed by the appellants were disposed of by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Abhijit Chakraborty v. The Bikrampur Coop Societies Ltd and Ors

Case No. : WA/147/2025

Counsel for the Appellant : R K Mour, N Baruah, P Das, R Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents : SC, CO OP