IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No.871-LPA of 2010 in/& L.P.A. No.1001 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.3.2010 The Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. -----Appellant Vs. Rajinder Pal Sharma & another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate for the applicant/appellant. ----- ORDER: 1. Order dated 26.2.2010, dismissing the appeal in default, is recalled and the appeal is restored. Heard on merits. 2. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, directing release of salary to the writ petitioner-respondent in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2100 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant against order of the revisional authority, setting aside order imposing punishment against the respondent. No stay having been granted, the direction regarding release of salary stands complied with. 3. Rajinder Pal Sharma, respondent No.1 was employed with the appellant as Field Assistant and was to look after the LPA No.1001 of 2002 wheat stocks. Chargesheet was given to him alleging negligence and embezzlement in performance of his duties. The charge was denied. The Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and held the charge to be proved, which led to imposition of punishment of reduction of pay to the minimum of the pay scale. The said order was affirmed in appeal but the revisional authority set aside the order of punishment dated 26.2.1992. It was held that chargesheet dated 25.4.1985 not having been issued by the competent authority, further proceedings were vitiated. The order of the revisional authority was challenged by the appellant while the respondent claimed the pay scale of Rs.1200-2100 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. 4. Learned Single Judge upheld the claim of the respondent and rejected the claim of the appellant. By referring to the Punjab State Supply and Marketing Co-operative Services (Common Cadre) Rules, 1967, it was observed that the Administrative Committee was the competent authority and delegation of powers by the said Committee was after the date of giving of chargesheet. The delegation of powers was on 31.10.1986 and the chargesheet was given earlier. Accordingly, proceedings against the respondent were held to be illegal. Claim of the pay scale being linked to the setting aside of the order of punishment, the said claim was upheld. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2 LPA No.1001 of 2002 6. Only contention which has been raised in support of the appeal is that powers were delegated on 19.1.1983 which was before the chargesheet and subsequent resolution dated 31.10.1986 was only reiteration of earlier resolution. Learned Single Judge negatived this plea holding that there was nothing to show that powers had been delegated on 19.1.1983. Alternatively, it was submitted that this question may be left open as other connected matters are pending where this issue is to be decided. 7. In view of the fact that the scale has already been released and after punishment was set aside about eight years back, the appellant did not take any fresh steps in the matter, we decline to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. Question whether delegation was before the chargesheet is left open, as suggested by learned counsel for the appellant. 8. The appeal is disposed of. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE March 09, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3