Madan Lal vs The Registrar Cooperative Societies and Others

M.R. Agnihotri, J.—This order shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 4573 of 1979 (Madan Lal v. Registrar) and 31 of 1980 (B.K. Sethi v. Registrar). Though the cases have come before us on. as reference dated 21.st November, 1988, by the learned Single Judge of this Court, vet In view of the latest decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, the matter need not be gone into and both the writ petitions can be disposed of on the short ground as they are covered by the same.

After hearing the learned Counsel, we find that the principal point involved in the writ petitions has alreadv been decided in Mohd. Ramzan Khan''s case (supra), as copy of the inquiry report was. not supplied to the Petitioners before the final order imposing major punishment of dismissal from service was passed against them.

The learned Counsel for the Respondents tried to distinguish the aforesaid judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court on the grounds that the case before the Hon''ble Supreme Court was of a Government servant whereas in the present cases, the Petitioners are employees of the Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited, Chandigarh, who are governed by the Punjab State Supply and Marketing Cooperatives Services (Common Cadre) Rules, 1967, and that the judgment of the Supreme Court is only prospective in nature and should not be applied retrospectively to the cases in hand where the impugned orders of dismissal from service were issued before the pronouncement of the judgment in Mohd. Ramzan Khan''s case (supra).

With respect to the learned Counsel, we do not find my merit in either of the pleas raised by him. So far as the applicability of the principles of natural justice is concerned, the relationship of master and servant will not permit any such consiceration to be countenanced, the result whereof may place an employee of the cooperative society governed by the statutory service rules at a lower Level or at a disadvantageous position than an employee of the State Government. Secondly, their Lordships of the Supreme Court while deciding Mohd. Ramzan Khan''s case held that the observations "shall have prospective application and no punishment imposed shall be open to challenge on this ground." This certainly does not mean that the law laid down by their Lordships will not be applicable even to the cases which are sub judice and are still pending adjudication in the High Courts in the country.

In view of the aforesaid situation, we allow these petitions and quash the impugned orders of dismissal dated 23rd May, 1975 (Annexure P. 3) as well as the order of the appellate authority dated 5/6th September, 1979 (Annexure P. 5) in CWP. No, 4573 of 1979 (Madan Lal''s case), and the order of dismissal dated 18th October, 1978 (Annexure P. 3) and the appellate order dated 10th October, 1979/5th November, 1979 (Annexure P. 5) in CWP. No. 31 of 1980 (B.K. Sethi''s case). Resultantly, the Petitioners shall be einstated in service and paid the arrears of salary and other allowances to which they would have been entitled had the impugned orders of dismissal from service not been passed against them.

There shall be no order as to costs.