The Tangaur Coop. Credit and Service Society Ltd., Tangaur Dist. Kurukshetra vs The Joint Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Department of Cooperation, Chandigarh

Mehtab S. Gill, J.—The petitioner has fried this writ petition for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certio-rari for quashing the orders dated 4.2.2000 and 25.8.2000. (Annexures P3 and P4 respectively.)

It has been averred that the petitioner''s Society i.e. Tangaur Cooperative Credit and Service Society Limited, Tangaur (hereinafter referred to as the Society) is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Respondent No. 3 i.e. Ram Singh worked as a Clerk-cum-Cashier with the petitioner''s Society. It has been further averred that respondent No. 3 embezzled some amount of the Society and also took bribe from the members of the society. Because of these misconducts of respondent No. 3, he was put under suspension on 6.4.1998. A charge-sheet was framed and issued to him on 8.5.1998. Respondent No. 3 gave reply dated 27.5.1998 to the charge-sheet. An Enquiry Officer was deputed to summon respondent No. 3 for 29.6.1998 through registered A.D. The registered A.D. was received back on 24.6.1998 but respondent No. 3 did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. Another registered letter for appearance of respondent No. 3 was issued on 30.6.1998. Respondent No. 3 did not pay any heed to the second registered letter also and did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. An ex parte enquiry was conducted and the charges levelled against him were proved. Shri Jasbir Singh who was appointed as an Enquiry Officer was the Vice President of the Society. The enquiry report had been attached with the writ petition as Annexure PI. A meeting of the Managing Committee of the Society took place and it was unanimously resolved to terminate the services of respondent No. 3. Copy of the resolution dated 31.10.1998 has been attached an Annexure P2 with the writ petition.

Against resolution, Annexure P2, respondent No. 3 filed an appeal under Rule 16 of the Primary Co-operative Credit and Services Societies Rules, 1992 before the Joint Registrar, Co-operatives Societies, Haryana. His appeal was accepted vide order dated 4.2.2000 (Annexure P3). Revision petition u/s 115 of the Act was filed by the Society before respondent No. 1 who dismissed the same vide order dated 25.8.2000 (Annexure P4).

Notice of motion was issued.

Respondent No. 3 filed written statement. In the writlen statement, respondent No. 3 has taken a preliminary objection that he was allowed to join duty by the petitioner-Society on 6.9.2000 in view of the order dated 4.2.2000 passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana and the order dated 25.8.2000 passed by the Joint Secretary, Cooperation, Haryana. Respondent No. 3 performed his duty till 16.9.2000 when the Society got a stay order from this Court. It has been further admitted by respondent No. 3 that a charge-sheet was served upon him to which he gave reply and further admitted that Jasbir Singh, Vice President of the petitioner-Society was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. He has further admitted that the Enquiry Officer issued a notice to him to appear before him but when he did go to appear before him, it was found that the Enquiry Officer had not come and was not available. The respondent then informed the Presi-dent of the Society and left the premises of the Society where he was to appear before Shri Jasbir Singh, Enquiry Officer.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the respondents, perused the petition, written statement and the annexures attached therewith.

The counsel for the petitioner has laid a lot of stress on the enquiry report which is Annexure P1. She has stated that the amount embezzled was that of the members of the Society. Their names and addresses were given and the amount embezzled is Rs. 20,530/-. Charge No. 1 pertains to embezzlement and charge No. 2 relates to taking of bribe from the members whose names have been given and both the charges were proved before the Enquiry Officer. Charge No. 3 was that respondent No. 3 did not recover instalments of loans and charge No. 4 was that he did not charge interest from the members, thus, causing pecuniary loss to the Society. All the charges were serious in nature and the same have been proved before the Enquiry Officer. The learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently argued that since respondent No. 3 inspite of his efforts could not appear before the Enquiry Officer as the officer was not available, therefore, the impugned orders, Annexures P3 and P4 were passed in favour of respondent No. 3.

Going through Annexure P2, I find that Shri Jasbir Singh, Vice President, who was a member of the Managing Committee was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. After he was appointed as an Enquiry Officer, he gave his report against respondent No. 3. He sat in the meeting where resolution for terminating the services of respondent No. 3 was passed. Thus, the proceedings of the meeting held by the Society are vitiated. I find this procedure of taking disciplinary action against respondent No. 3 as faulty as Shri Jasbir Singh, Enquiry Officer should not have been a party to the meeting of the Society in which the services of respondent No. 3 were terminated.

Counsel for the petitioner has cited State of Punjab and Others Vs. Dr Harbhajan Singh Greasy, in which the Hon''ble Supreme Court remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority to follow the procedure from the stage at which the fault was pointed out and to take action according to law. It was further ordered that pending enquiry, the delinquent must be deemed to be under suspension. In this case also, as the charges were of serious nature, the impugned orders, Annexures P3 and P4 and quashed. The Managing Committee is at liberty to hold a fresh meeting and consider the enquiry report afresh and pass any appropriate order it deems proper. Respondent No. 3, will remain under suspension till a final decision is taken by the Managing Com- mittee.

The learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance on Civil Writ Petition No. 589 of 1994 decided on January 20, 1994. I do not agree with the proposition of law laid down in the Civil Writ Petition as it does not apply to the facts of this case.

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

Petition disposed of.