CWP NO.18526 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.18526 of 2007 (O & M ) Decided on : 16.02.2009 Jagdish Chander ....Petitioner VERSUS Registrar, Cooperative Society, Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present:- Mr. Jaspal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. S. S. Dalal, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. AJAY TEWARI J. The petitioner was initially placed under suspension on 20.05.1966. Thereafter, vide order dated 22.3.1994, the Registrar Cooperative Society set aside and rescinded the action of the respondent and reinstated the petitioner with all consequential benefits. Against the order dated 22.3.1994, respondent No.1 filed an appeal under Section 114 of the Act before the Finance Commissioner, who disposed of the same in the following terms:- “The law of land, however, is that the service of a permanent employee, which Jagdish Chander was, could not be taken away without following principles of natural CWP NO.18526 of 2007 -2- justice. Even if 27/28 years have passed since the passing of the resolution dated 17.10.1966, the employee needs to be given charge sheet and statement of allegations against him and regular proceedings initiated before it can be decided by the society whether his services merited to be terminated. I accordingly order status quo ante before the passing of impugned order dated 22.3.1994. The society is directed to issue a regular charge sheet, along with statement of allegations, to the employee and determine, if any action was needed to be taken against him thereafter on merits.” Against that order, CWP No.16117 of 1995 was filed which was, however, dismissed with the following observations:- “Dismissed with the observations that cause of action, if any, against the order dated 8.9.95 accrued to respondent No.3 Sh. Jagdish Chander and not to petitioner, which was only given directions by the Secretary to proceed departmentally against respondent No.3.” Consequently, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and the inquiry held, wherein he was exonerated. However, the competent authority did not agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and consequently issued a notice along with statement of allegations calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the penalty of dismissal by way of confirmation of earlier decision be not imposed. After considering the reply, the competent authority confirmed the earlier order of dismissal of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal in which the following order was CWP NO.18526 of 2007 -3- passed on 13.01.2005:- “13.01.2005 Shri Jagdish Chander appellant is present. The appeal is maintainable in view of the arguments advanced by the appellant counsel. The notice to respondent be issued for appearance and production of records on 17.2.2005 at 3.00 P.M. Sd/- RCS 13-01/2005.” Subsequently, the said appeal had been dismissed by holding the same to be not maintainable on the ground that only the original order had been confirmed, since at that time no service rules were applicable and thus, no appeal lay against the same. It has also been urged by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has an alternative remedy which has not been availed. In my opinion, this writ petition must succeed. It is not disputed that a regular enquiry was held into the charges and it is only thereafter that the respondents have decided to dismiss the petitioner. Even though the nomenclature used may be that of confirmation of the earlier decision but the fact remains that a fresh decision has been taken. Against this fresh decision, the petitioner undoubtedly has a right of appeal and decision thereon can not be side stepped on the ground that the present order is a mere confirmation of the earlier order or at the time of passing of the earlier order, no appeal lay. As regards the contention that an alternative remedy exists, I find that the present is a case where the cause of action accrued more than 20 years ago. CWP NO.18526 of 2007 -4- In the circumstances, I find that it is an appropriate case wherein the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction can be exercised despite the fact that an alternative remedy is provided. In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and the order (Annexure P-3) is set aside and the respondent no.1 is directed to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner on merits. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of. February 16, 2009 ( AJAY TEWARI ) ashish JUDGE