Dismissed

The Rewari Central Coop.Bank Ltd. v. Registrar Coop.Sty.Hy.Chd.Etc

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Dec 2008CWP/3229/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a writ petition filed by an employer challenging an appellate order that set aside an employee's dismissal and ordered forfeiture of increments. The Court held that with the employee retired and time elapsed, the petition lost its sting and the order was not perverse.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed.

The Rewari Central Coop.Bank Ltd… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

CWP No.3229 of 1988 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

C. W. P. No.3229 of 1988

¶4

Date of Decision: 16 - 12 - 2008

¶5

The Rewari Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. ....Petitioner

¶6

¶7

The Registrar, Coop. Societies, Haryana and others

¶8

....Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶10

¶11

Present: None for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.K.S.Godara, DAG, Haryana for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶13

Mr.I.D.Singla, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶14

¶15

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA (ORAL)

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed by the Rewari Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Rewari through its Managing Director against the order Annexure P-2 passed by the Joint Registrar (Enforcement) Cooperative Societies, Haryana, Chandigarh exercising the powers of Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana.

¶17

Case of the petitioner is that Rameshwar Dayal was employed as Secretary, Mini Bank under the petitioner-Bank i.e. the Rewari Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Rewari. Under Rule 27 of the Haryana State

¶18

CWP No.3229 of 1988 [2]

¶19

Central Cooperative Banks' Staff Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter to be referred as, `the Rules'), respondent No.3 Rameshwar Dayal was served with a charge sheet that he has embezzled amount of Rs.517/- and mis-utilized the funds to the tune of Rs.8456.11 paise. It is stated that charge sheet was duly received and acknowledged by the delinquent employee who was asked to deposit the amount within 7 days. A final show cause notice was issued on 16.12.1985. On 31.12.1985, Board of Directors had assembled for giving personal hearing to the employee. Since Rameshwar Dayal respondent No.3 had not appeared, the matter was adjourned. It is stated that on 17.2.1986 against a proper receipt a sum of Rs.12,384.85 paise was deposited on behalf of employee Rameshwar Dayal.

¶20

On 18.3.1986, Board of Directors decided to dismiss the services of respondent No.3 Rameshwar Dayal.

¶21

Aggrieved against the order of dismissal, Rameshwar Dayal filed an appeal before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana which was decided vide Annexure P-2.

¶22

A perusal of the impugned order show that in the present case no enquiry was conducted as delinquent employee had accepted all the allegations. Further more, it was held by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies in the impugned order, punishment was proposed by the Managing Director of the respondent-Bank, whereas appointing authority qua the employee was Board of Directors. Argument was also raised before the Joint Registrar that employee had not embezzled and mis-utilized the funds mentioned in the order of dismissal. In the impugned order, Joint Registrar took into consideration the fact that the embezzled amount has been deposited by the employee and charge was for a meagre amount of

¶23

CWP No.3229 of 1988 [3]

¶24

Rs.517/-, therefore, taking into consideration proportionality of punishment to be awarded, order of dismissal was set aside and it was ordered that two annual increments with cumulative effect be not paid to the delinquent employee. This order was passed on 14.12.1987. The present writ petition was filed in the year 1988.

¶25

It is stated that employee by now has retired. Therefore, by efflux of time, the present writ petition has lost its sting. In the present case, amount of embezzlement and misutilisation had been deposited and accepted by the petitioner-Bank. Therefore, there is no manifest error in the order passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Socieities, Haryana while exercising powers of the Appellate Authority.

¶26

In view of above, no interference is warranted while exercising writ jurisdiction when the impugned order is not perverse. Hence, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed.

¶27

December 16, 2008.

¶28

( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) JUDGE

¶29

The Rewari Central Coop.Bank Ltd. v. Registrar Coop.Sty.Hy.Chd.Etc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Rewari Central Coop.Bank Ltd. v. Registrar Coop.Sty.Hy.Chd.Etc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Bhandari Vs Sanjay Gupta

Mohd. Salimudin and Anr. Vs Somi Devi and Anr.

Prem Chand and Anr. Vs Surinder Kumar and Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Vs Jaswinder Sharma

Roshan Singh Vs Kuldip Singh

Kishan Lal Vs Manohar Lal and Ors.