Only the Registrar may adjudicate cooperative society employee disputes under Section 55 of the Act.

The appellant was appointed as Manager of Adarsh Matsya Udyog Sahkari Samiti Maryadit by the Society’s Board of Directors on 10.04.2022.

The Society’s Service Rules prescribed the competent authority and procedure for disciplinary action, including a departmental enquiry and opportunity of hearing.

The previous Manager, Shri Jagadish/Jugla Raikwar, had been removed pursuant to the proposal dated 10.04.2022. Although he had earlier challenged the proposal in W.P. No. 15835 of 2025, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to pursue the remedy under Section 55 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act; he did not thereafter challenge the proposal before the Registrar.

Subsequently, a member of the Society submitted a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, Cooperative Societies, on 12.08.2025. An inquiry was conducted into the Society’s resolutions, and on its basis the Deputy Commissioner passed an order dated 04.09.2025 annulling proceedings conducted between 26.03.2021 and 08.05.2023. This effectively revived the proposal dated 10.04.2022 and adversely affected the appellant’s appointment and continuance as Manager.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition, holding that the resolutions had been procured through fraud and were not genuine resolutions of the Managing Committee; consequently, the Deputy Registrar was competent to examine and cancel them.

Whether the Deputy Commissioner/Deputy Registrar had jurisdiction to annul the Society’s resolutions and thereby affect the appellant’s appointment and continuance as Manager, when the dispute essentially concerned the Society and its employee under Section 55 of the Act?

Whether the appellant’s appointment and service rights could be annulled without following the applicable Service Rules, conducting a disciplinary enquiry, and affording him an effective opportunity of hearing?

Whether alleged fraud or irregularity in the Society’s resolutions enabled the authority to bypass the statutory mechanism and prescribed service procedure?

Section 55 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, as reproduced in the judgment, empowers the Registrar, or an officer appointed by him not below the rank of Assistant Registrar, to decide disputes between a society and its employees, including disputes relating to terms of employment and disciplinary action; such decision is binding, subject to the statutory thirty-day limitation.

The applicable Service Rules require disciplinary action to be taken by the competent authority through the prescribed procedure, including a departmental enquiry and observance of natural justice.

A public or statutory authority cannot directly deprive an employee of appointment or service rights without jurisdiction and without affording an effective opportunity of hearing, even where allegations of fraud or irregularity are raised.

The dispute-resolution authority under Section 55 could not be bypassed by recharacterising an employment dispute as an inquiry into the validity of Society resolutions.

The Court held that the impugned order directly affected the appellant’s appointment and continuance as Manager and therefore substantially concerned a dispute between the Society and its employee, falling within Section 55 of the Act.

The authority competent to adjudicate such a dispute was the Registrar or an officer validly appointed by him; the Deputy Commissioner had not been shown to possess such delegated authority.

The Court further held that the alleged irregularities or fraud in the resolutions could not justify bypassing the statutory forum or the disciplinary procedure prescribed by the Service Rules. Since the appellant’s service rights were affected, he was entitled to an enquiry and an effective opportunity of hearing.

The learned Single Judge therefore erred in treating the alleged fraud as sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Deputy Registrar/Deputy Commissioner to cancel the resolutions.

The High Court set aside the learned Single Judge’s order dated 29.04.2026 and the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 04.09.2025.

The Court held that the Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to annul the resolutions and affect the appellant’s appointment without following Section 55 of the Act, the applicable Service Rules, and the principles of natural justice.