Joginder Singh vs The Gobind Pura Co-Operative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. and Others

Mahesh Grover, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 3.6.1.997 (Annexure P-5). Initially, the petitioner faced allegations of misappropriating the amounts of the Society, which eventually led to his dismissal. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, who vide his order dated 19.9.1996 accepted the same. In this order, it was specifically noticed that the petitioner had deposited the amount regarding which there were allegations of misappropriation against him. The order of dismissal was set aside and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated and instead a punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon him for the reason that he had deposited the amount with the Society after some delay.

The respondents then filed a revision petition before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, which was dismissed leading to filing of the second revision petition before the Government by the respondent-Society, which was accepted and the order of dismissal of the petitioner was restored.

Impugning this order dated 3.6.1997 (Annexure P-5), learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the only allegation against him, which was duly established, was regarding the delay in depositing the amount which also was very meager i.e. Rs. 660.15 paisa. He contends that this irregularity could, by no stretch of imagination, be construed to be a serious irregularity to warrant the punishment of dismissal and, therefore, the order of the Deputy Registrar, which was passed in appeal imposing a punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect, was just and appropriate.

Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the revisional authority vide the impugned order had looked into the entire record of the petitioner and found it to be unsatisfactory and also noticed that there was a liability of Rs. 28,358.06 paisa which also the petitioner has misappropriated and, thus, the order of dismissal was justified. Apart from this, there were other allegations established on the basis of record which the revisional authority perused.

On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the Revisional authority, while passing the impugned order, could not travel beyond the scope of the charges which were leveled against the petitioner. If the petitioner had faced proceedings in a related case that would be an independent cause to be dealt with separately by the competent Authority and for which an appropriate disciplinary proceeding and punishment should have been the logical course. This course has indeed been adopted by the authorities and regarding which a separate petition was preferred by the petitioner. But to say that the petitioner is charged with retaining an amount of Rs. 660 and some odd, which also he deposited though after some time and to take into consideration some other material which does not form part to charge-sheet against him and then to form this to be the basis of restoring the punishment of dismissal, would be a course which would be unjustified and impermissible.

Undeniably, the petitioner has deposited the amount even though after some time and, therefore, in the given set of circumstances, the order of the Deputy Registrar could only be termed to be justified whereas the order of the revisional authority where it exceeded the scope of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

The writ petition is accepted; the impugned order is set aside and the order of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, which was upheld in revision by the Joint Registrar is restored. The petitioner shall be deemed to be in service w.e.f. the date of the passing of the impugned order.