UMASHANKAR TIWARI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010274742026 2026:CGHC:38944
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 6250 of 2026
1 - Umashankar Tiwari S/o Shri Akharam Tiwari, Aged About 62
Years Assistant Accountant (The Then In-Charge Branch Manager),
Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Chandrapur, District - Sakti
(C.G.)(Suspended And Now Retired), R/o Tiwari Sadan, Patrakar
Colony Road, Waed No. 64, Mahamaya Nagar, Sanjog Vatika,
V.T.C.- Birkona, Post Birkona, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary
Cooperative Societies, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur,
District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - The Commissioner, Cooperative And Registrar Of Cooperative
Societies, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur District -Raipur
(C.G.)
3 - The Jiont Commissioner, Cooperative And Registrar Of
Cooperative Societies, Bilaspur Division -Bilaspur , Tehsil Bilaspur
District - Bilaspur (C.G.)
4 - The Deputy Commissioner, Cooperative And Registrar Of
Cooperative Societies, Sakti -Tehsil Sakti District -Sakti (C.G.)
5 - Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Bilaspur Through Its Chief
Executive Officer, Sahkar Bhawan, Nehru Chauk, Bilaspur, Tehsil -
Bilaspur, District -Bilaspur (C.G.)
6 - The President, Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Bilaspur,
Tehsil -Bilaspur, District -Bilaspur (C.G.)

2
7 - The Branch Manager, Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit
Chandrapur, District -Sakti (C.G.)
8 - The Nodal / Assistant Nodal Officer, Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank
Maryadit Sakti , District -Sakti (C.G.)
... Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate.
For Respondents/State : Ms. Apurva Nigam, Panel Lawyer
For Respondents No.5 to 8 : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
02/09/2026
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks
quashing of the order of punishment dated 29.06.2026, issued
from the office of respondent No. 5, whereby the petitioner’s
pay scale has been reduced as a consequence of his
demotion and he has further been directed to deposit a sum of
Rs. 4,63,101/- by way of challan within a period of 15 days.
2.
At the outset, learned counsel for respondents raised an
objection with regard to maintainability of writ petition on the
ground that petitioner is having efficacious alternate remedy
available to him to file dispute/proceeding before the Registrar
under Section 55 (2) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative
Societies Act, 1960 (In short ‘the Act, 1960’). He also
contended that petitioner could have also submitted an
application/appeal under Rule 65 of the Zila Sahakari Kendriya
Bank Karmachari Seva Niyam.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that this provision under

3
Seva Niyam is applicable only when some order of punishment
is inflicted upon petitioner after department enquiry
proceedings or to challenge the enquiry proceedings. He also
submits that proceedings U/s. 55 (2) of the Act, 1960 will also
not apply, however, he could not substantiate his submission in
this regard.
4. Provision U/s. 55 (2) of the Act, 1964 reads as under :-
“5. Registrar’s power to determine conditions
of employment in societies –
(1) x x x x
[(2) Where a dispute, including a dispute
regarding terms of employment, working
conditions and disciplinary action taken by a
society, arises between a society and its
employees, the Registrar or any officer appointed
by him not below the rank of Assistant Registrar
shall decide the dispute and his decision shall be
binding on the society an its employees.
Provided that the Registrar or the officer
referred to above shall not entertain the dispute
unless presented to him within thirty days from
the date of order sought to be impugned;
Provided further that in computing the period
of limitation under the foregoing proviso, the time

4
requisite for obtaining copy of the order shall be
excluded.”
5. Petitioner is aggrieved with the order of punishment, which will
come within the working conditions and therefore, in the
opinion of this Court, petitioner is having the remedy U/s. 55
(2) of the Act,1960 to raise dispute before the jurisdictional
authorities.
6.
For the foregoing discussions I am not inclined to entertain this
writ petition as petitioner is having efficacious alternate remedy
under the Act, 1960. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
However, petitioner will be at liberty to avail the other alternate
remedy available to her under the law.
SD/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
Judge
Amardeep