Civil Writ Petition No.16309 of 1989 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16309 of 1989 Date of decision: December 01, 2010. The Karnal Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. ...Petitioner(s) v. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Jagdeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Shri K.C. Bhatia, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.1. Shri Kamal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Civil Misc. No.10811-12 of 2010 Allowed, as prayed. The writ petition is restored to its original number, and is taken on board for final disposal. CWP No.16309 of 1989 The present writ petition has been preferred by the Karnal Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. against the decision rendered by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana, Chandigarh, who acting as the Appellate Authority, accepted the appeal of respondent No.2 – employee of the petitioner. Briefly stated, respondent No.2 was employed as a Secretary Civil Writ Petition No.16309 of 1989 -: 2 :- with the petitioner-Bank and he was posted in different Societies and at the relevant time, he was discharging his duties in Jalmana Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd., Jalmana. It was stated that the employee had committed various acts of omission and commission and in consequence thereof, a charge sheet was served upon him. List of allegations against respondent No.2, who was posted as Secretary, was enlcosed with the charge sheet. The following allegations had surfaced against respondent No.2, employee of the petitioner-Bank:- 1. Embezzlement of Rs.94424.85 out of the funds of the Gorgarh C/S 2. Embezzlement of Rs.30226.22 out of the funds of Jalmana C/S 3. Misuse of Power 4. Negligence of duties 5. Absence from duties The Enquiry Officer held that the charges have been proved and the punishing authority passed order Annexure P-5 whereby respondent No.2 was dismissed from service and it was further ordered that recovery proceedings be initiated against him. Aggrieved against the same, respondent No.2 – employee had filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that in punishment order, reliance has been placed on an enquiry held by a Sub Committee consisting of Managing Director and Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies and in that enquiry, respondent No.2 was not associated. The following portion of the punishment order is required to be noticed:- “The Board of Directors after giving personal hearing to Shri Civil Writ Petition No.16309 of 1989 -: 3 :- Jai Bhagwan Secretary (U/s) decided that a sub-committee consisting of Managing Director of the bank and Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Karnal is constituted to go into the case in detail and submit the report after making the thorough enquiry in the next B.O.Ds meeting. In view of the B.O.Ds decision dated 6.8.1987 the M.D. And D.R. C/S Karnal have reviewed the whole case and examined the record relating to this case. They have mentioned in their report that allegation levelled against the Secretary except Rs.5600/- which entered in the cash book are proved. The whole case was again placed before the Administrators of the bank in their meeting on 19.10.1988 for consideration and decision. The Secretary was also informed to this very fact. Shri Jai Bhagwan, Secretary (U/s) appeared before the Administrators of the bank on 19.10.1988 and pleaded his case. The Administrators of the bank after careful consideration of the whole case of the delinquent decided to dismiss the services of Shri Jai Bhagwan Secretary (U/s) with immediate effect.” The Appellate Authority noticed the contention of the Counsel for the respondent-employee and, thus, a fresh enquiry was ordered by the Board of Directors and in pursuance thereof, the Managing Director and the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies again submitted an enquiry report, without affording an opportunity of hearing to respondent No.2. It was further stated that neither respondent No.2 was associated with the enquiry proceedings nor copy of the enquiry report was supplied to him. After Civil Writ Petition No.16309 of 1989 -: 4 :- going through the report, the Appellate Authority observed as under:- “The reading of the above implies that the sub-committee of M.D. and D.R. was supposed to thoroughly enquire/go into the details of the case and submit their report. All these terms are very unambiguous and clearly amount to order of a fresh enquiry. The natural conclusion is that the earlier enquiry was not accepted by the B.O.D. The respondent bank has failed to convince me that the appellant has been provided an ample opportunity to defend his case during the second enquiry.” The order of the Appellate Authority is under challenge in the present writ petition. A perusal of the punishment order Annexure P-5 indeed reveals that the punishing authority had taken fresh enquiry conducted by the Managing Director and Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies into consideration. Respondent No.2 was admittedly not associated with the subsequent enquiry proceedings which were held at the direction of the Board of Directors. No material has been placed before this Court to controvert the finding of the Appellate Authority that respondent No.2 was associated in the second enquiry. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy (2005)6 SCC 321 to say that if a post-decisional hearing has been given, it will not obliterate procedural deficiency of pre-decisional hearing and the same will be useless formality. In the present case, prejudice is writ large. The first enquiry report was not accepted by the Board of Directors. A fresh enquiry was ordered which was held by the Managing Director and the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies; Civil Writ Petition No.16309 of 1989 -: 5 :- respondent No.2 was not associated with that enquiry, therefore, the post- decisional proceedings were held at the back of respondent No.2 and those post-decisional enquiry proceedings have been made basis of punishment order. Hence, there is no infirmity in the well reasoned order passed by the Appellate Authority. The writ Court will not be able to come to the rescue of the petitioner. The writ petition was filed in the year 1989. The order was passed by the punishing authority in the year 1988; after 22 years, no ground is made out to remit the matter. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] December 01, 2010. Judge kadyan