IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.12377 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 17, 2009 Gurdhir Singh Tiwana .....PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.Navjeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner is working as Assistant Manager in Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank at Samana. In the year 1996, he was charge-sheeted for not achieving the target of recovery and remaining absent from duty. After holding the regular inquiry, vide order dated 23.6.1998 passed by respondent No.3, the petitioner was awarded the punishment of stoppage of three annual increments. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal, but the same was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 12.3.1999, which was conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 11.5.1999. Against the order of dismissal of his appeal, the petitioner filed a review application, which was also dismissed by the Sub Committee on 15.4.2002. For six years the petitioner remained silent and in the year 2008, against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). The Additional Registrar (C), Cooperative Societies, Punjab vide order dated23.4.2008 has dismissed the C.W.P. No.12377 of 2009 -2- said revision on two grounds. Firstly that against the aforesaid order, the revision petition under Section 69 of the Act was not maintainable, and secondly, even otherwise the revision petition was barred by limitation. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner in this petition. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned order, I do not find any illegality in the aforesaid order. In The Amritsar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Amritsar v. Deputy Registgrar (E) Cooperative Societies, Punjab and another (CWP No.19790 of 2008, decided on 15.7.2009), it has been held by this Court that a revision petition under Section 69 of the Act is maintainable only against the order passed by an authority under the Act and not by the Managing Director or an officer of the Society. In the instant case, the order of punishment was passed by the Managing Director. The appellate order was passed by the Chairman Administrative Committee of the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Limited. Therefore, the revisional authority has rightly held that against those orders, no revision is maintainable. Secondly, even if the revision is held to be maintainable, the same was filed after a delay of more than six years without any explanation. On that account also the revisional authority has rightly held that the revision was barred by limitation. Thus, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the revisional authority. Dismissed. August 17, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE