CWP No.1380 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C. W. P. No. 1380 of 2010 Date of Decision: 10 - 9 - 2010 The Daggan Cooperative Agricultural ....Petitioner Service Society Ltd. Daggan v. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Ashwani Prasher, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Puri, Addl. A.G., Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3. Ms.Jyoti Sareen, Advocate for respondent No.4. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that order dated 25.3.2009, Annexure P4, passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Hoshiarpur, whereby the appeal filed by respondent No.4-Raghvir Singh was accepted and his termination was set aside, be quashed along with orders dated 19.6.2009 and 7.12.2009, Annexures P6 and P8 respectively, whereby the revisional authorities had affirmed the order dated 25.3.2009. Briefly stated, petitioner – the Daggan Cooperative CWP No.1380 of 2010 [2] Agricultural Service Society Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as, `the Society') is engaged in providing agricultural services to its members. The day to day functions are looked-after by the office bearers of the Society. Respondent No.4 was a paid employee and was acting as a Secretary of the Society. On 24.12.2008, a resolution was passed by the Managing Committee of the Society placing Raghbir Singh – respondent No.4 under suspension. A charge sheet was also issued to him in consonance with the resolution passed. The charge sheet spelt out 9 charges. Respondent No.4 filed his detailed charge-wise reply. Vide order Annexure P3, the Society terminated the services of respondent No.4 without holding any enquiry. For doing so, an inference was drawn that reply filed by respondent No.4 amounted to admission and hence, no enquiry was necessary. Aggrieved against the same, Raghbir Singh – respondent No.4 filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority after examining the reply came to conclusion that it was incumbent upon the Society to adhere to the provisions of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as, `the Act'). The Society assailed this order by filing a revision before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, who vide order dated 19.6.2009 at Annexure P6 dismissed the revision and upheld the order passed by the Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the Society filed a second revision before the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab under Section 69 of the Act. The Financial Commissioner rightly rejected the contention of the Society that reply filed by Raghbir Singh – respondent No.4 amounts to categorical admission of the charges levelled against him and observed as under:- “....It was necessary, that an inquiry was conducted into the allegations against him, by an independent inquiry officer, by consulting the concerned record and after giving proper CWP No.1380 of 2010 [3] opportunity to the society as well as the Respondent to plead their respective cases. It is held, therefore, that in the absence of the regular inquiry against the employee, the order of dismissal is bad in the eyes of law. The orders passed by the Deputy Registrar and Additional Registrar are, therefore, upheld and the present rep is ordered to be dismissed. This will, however, not a bar for getting a regular inquiry conducted into the allegations against the Respondent and take fresh decision on merits.” The view formulated by three statutory authorities is assailed by Mr.Prashar on the ground that reply, Annexure P2, amounts to admission on the part of delinquent employee and hence, no enquiry was necessary. This Court while exercising writ jurisdiction ought not to have examined the reply but still yielding to the forceful argument advanced by Mr.Prashar, this Court has examined the reply, Annexure P2. After doing so, this Court is of the firm opinion that Financial Commissioner, Cooperation had rightly held that reply cannot be taken as admission of allegations. Therefore, it has been rightly held that it was necessary for the Society to hold an enquiry. Hence, there is no merit in the present petition to set aside the well recorded findings of three statutory authorities. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) September 10, 2010. JUDGE RC