Partly allowed

Jaitu Mulit Purpose Coop. So. Ltd, Jaitu v. Jagjit Singh & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Aug 2012CWP/12530/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the termination order was vitiated because the respondent was denied the mandatory opportunity to respond to a report and notice proposing major penalty under the relevant Service Rules before the penalty was imposed.

What did the court decide?

The termination resolution dated 26.3.2010 and subsequent appellate/revisional orders are set aside and the matter remitted to the disciplinary authority for proceedings in terms of the Rules.

Jaitu Mulit Purpose Coop. So. Ltd, Jaitu Vs… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No. 12530 of 2011

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Writ Petition No. 12530 of 2011 (O&M)

¶5

Date of decision : 14.8.2012.

¶6

The Jaitu Multi-purpose Cooperative Society Ltd. vs Jagjit Singh and others

¶7

.. Petitioner

¶8

... Respondents

¶9

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

¶10

Present: Mr. Harit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M. S. Bedi, Advocate, for respondent no. 1. Mr. Satish Bhanot, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

¶11

Rajesh Bindal, J.

¶12

The petitioner society has approached this court impugning the order dated 13.12.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority as well as order dated 9.6.2011 passed by the Revisional Authority whereby the appeal filed by respondent no. 1 was accepted by the Appellate Authority and the Revision filed by the petitioner against the same was dismissed.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent no. 1 in the present case was working as Peon with the society. As the salesman Balkaran Singh working in the society was suspended and there was no other salesman, respondent no. 1, who was working as Peon since 22.9.1995 was given the charge of the salesman vide resolution dated 21.8.2007 (Annexure P-1). On reinstatement of Balkaran Singh in service, in the meeting of the society held on 7.10.2009, respondent no. 1 was directed to hand over the charge back to Balkaran Singh along with necessary record and cash lying with him. As he failed to comply with the directions, he was placed under suspension on 4.12.2009. Vide resolution dated 21.12.2009, a charge sheet was issued against him. A regular enquiry was conducted in which respondent no. 1 did not participate. Findings were recorded against him. As a consequence thereof, vide resolution dated

¶14

Civil Writ Petition No. 12530 of 2011

¶15

(2)

¶16

26.3.2010, services of respondent no. 1 were terminated. The order was impugned by him before the Appellate Authority, which accepted the appeal on 13.12.2010 and set aside the order of termination. Even though earlier resolution dated 7.10.2009, vide which respondent no. 1 was reverted back to the post of Peon, was not challenged before the Appellate Authority but even that was also set aside. The date of hearing fixed before the Appellate Authority was 23.12.2010, however, the appeal was taken up on 13.12.2010 and disposed of. Even counsel for the petitioner was not present, however his presence was marked. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner filed revision before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, which was dismissed by a non-speaking order on 9.6.2011. It is a case in which embezzlement and irregularities committed by respondent no. 1 were duly proved during the course of inquiry. The Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional authority have not recorded any finding on the merit of the controversy and totally nonspeaking orders have been passed.

¶17

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submitted that vide resolution dated 21.8.2007, respondent no. 1 was, in fact, appointed as Salesman. He was not given simply charge of the post. Unceremoniously he was reverted back on 7.10.2009 from the post of Salesman to the post of Peon. He further submitted that enquiry was conducted at the back of respondent no. 1. He was not duly served. Before imposition of penalty, he was required to be served with a copy of the enquiry report along with proposed punishment as per Rule 14 of the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Service Rules, 1997 (for short, 'the Rules'). However, the same was clearly violated. The matter was examined by the Appellate Authority as well as by the Revisional Authority and finding that there was violation of the aforesaid rule, the order of termination was set aside.

¶18

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering their contentions, in my opinion, there is weight in the arguments addressed by learned counsel for respondent no. 1 that there were violation of rule 14 (3) (v) and (vi) of the Rules which requires supply of enquiry report along

¶19

Civil Writ Petition No. 12530 of 2011

¶20

(3)

¶21

with the notice proposing the punishment, in case major penalty is to be imposed. Rule 14 (3) (v) and (vi) of the Rules is extracted below:-

¶22

“14. PENALITIES :

¶23

3 (v) The enquiry officer shall submit the report to the competent authority and competent authority after considering the report if reaches at a conclusion that some major penalty is required to be inflicted on the employee, shall give a notice to the concerned employee proposing there in the penalty to be inflicted on the employee and to give him an opportunity to represent within a period of 15 days as to why this penalty should not be inflicted upon him.

¶24

(vi) After the expiry of 15 days and after considering the reply of the employee, if received, the competent authority shall pass the orders of inflicting of major penalty on the employee.”

¶25

In the present case, neither copy of the report was supplied before imposition of penalty to the respondent-workman nor any show cause notice was issued to him proposing major penalty.

¶26

Accordingly, the order passed by the society terminating the services of the petitioner is vitiated from that stage onwards. As a result thereof, the impugned resolution dated 26.3.2010 terminating the services of the petitioner and the order passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority dated 13.12.2010 and 9.6.2011, respectively, are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority for proceeding further on the basis of enquiry report in terms of the provisions of the Rules.

¶27

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶28

14.8.2012 vs

¶29

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge

Jaitu Mulit Purpose Coop. So. Ltd, Jaitu v. Jagjit Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaitu Mulit Purpose Coop. So. Ltd, Jaitu v. Jagjit Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pintu Kumar Sharma and Others Vs Rakesh Singh, IAS and Others

Savita Kumari Vs K.B.S. Sidhu & Ors.

Fakardeen Vs K.B.S. Sidhu and Ors.

Anand Pal & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Gaurav Puri Vs P.S.P.C.L and Anr.

Raj Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Others