IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 10057 of 1992 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 15.10.2009 The Haryana State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited, Chandigarh .... PETITIONER Versus Shri R.K. Goel and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. H.S. Gill, Senior Advocate, with Mr. K.B.S. Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Pardeep Solath, Advocate, for respondent No.1. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The Haryana State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the Hafed') has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders dated 17.1.1992 and 27.8.1992, passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana (respondent No.2 herein). In the present case, vide order dated 31.5.1988, penalty of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect was imposed on respondent No.1 by the Managing Director of the Hafed. In appeal, vide CWP No. 10057 of 1992 -2- order dated 2.3.1990, the said order was confirmed by the Board of Administrators of the Hafed. Against those orders, respondent No.1 filed revision before respondent No.2 under Clause 20 of the Haryana State Supply and Marketing Cooperative Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the Service Rules') read with Section 37 of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). Before respondent No.2, the Hafed raised a preliminary objection that the said revision petition was not maintainable. Respondent No.2, vide order dated 17.1.1992, rejected the preliminary objection and held that under Clause 20 of the Service Rules read with Section 37 of the Act, the Registrar has the power to decide the revision filed against the order of the Board of Directors. Thereafter, the revision filed by respondent No.1 was heard on merits and vide order dated 27.8.1992, the same was allowed by respondent No.2 and the order of punishment dated 31.5.1988 passed by the Managing Director as well as the order dated 2.3.1990, passed by the Board of Administrators dismissing the appeal, were set aside. Against the said order, the instant petition was filed, which was admitted on 28.7.1992 and it was ordered to be heard with CWP No. 8757 of 1990. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly conceded that CWP No. 8757 of 1990 was dismissed by this Court on 24.10.2001, while holding that the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana, was competent to hear the revision passed against the order of the Board of Directors. Even CWP No. 10057 of 1992 -3- otherwise, in this case, the Managing Director imposed the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect by following the procedure prescribed for imposing minor penalty. Undisputedly, no enquiry was held before imposing the said penalty. It has been held in Kulwant Singh Gill Versus The State of Punjab, 1990 (6) Services Law Reporter (Supreme Court) that the penalty of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty and the same cannot be imposed without conducting a regular departmental enquiry. Counsel for the petitioner could not controvert this factual and legal position. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order, passed by respondent No.2. Dismissed. October 15, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE