CWP No. 16553 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 16553 of 2011 Date of Decision: 06.09.2011 The Chanarthal Khurd Cooperative Multipurpose Service Society Limited. .. Petitioner Versus Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: Mr. M.S.Kang, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Lalit Pathak, Advocate, for Caveator/respondent No.3. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH J. (ORAL) Present petition is filed assailing order dated July 11th, 2011 (Annexure P/10) passed by Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Patiala, respondent no.1, setting aside resolution dated 15.11.2010 (Annexure P/8) removing respondent no. 3 from the post of Salesman on the ground that enquiry was not held before passing the removal order. Notice of motion. On being asked, Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Deputy Advocate CWP No. 16553 of 2011 2 .. General, Punjab has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Lalit Pathak, Advocate, appearing on behalf of caveator/respondent No. 3, has accepted notice. In the opinion of this Court, present petition can be decided at the admission stage itself. Mr. Kang, learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance on Annexures P/1 to P/6, has argued that respondent No.3 has admitted embezzlement and shortage of the stocks and has assured the petitioner-Society to deposit the embezzled amount and to pay cost of short items in his custody, therefore, on the basis of admissions made by respondent no.3 from time to time, he was rightly removed from the post of Salesman vide resolution, Annexure P/8. Mr. Kang has further argued that in view of the admissions made by respondent No. 3 vide Annexures P/1 to P/6, no formal enquiry was required to be conducted. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 states that a proper opportunity must be given to respondent No. 3 in a disciplinary enquiry to explain Annexures P/1 to P/6, alleged admissions made by him. Mr. Jaswinder Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has fairly stated that enquiry must be held, but during enquiry respondent No. 3 should be placed under suspension so that he may not tamper with the record, whereby, charges against respondent no. 3 can be proved/disproved. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having CWP No. 16553 of 2011 3 .. perused the record, in the opinion of this Court, order passed by respondent No.1, dated 11.7.2011 (Annexure P/10) does not require any interference. At this stage, Mr. Kang, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that an enquiry shall be initiated against respondent No. 3 within a month and shall be concluded in accordance with law, in any case within six months from today, however, during enquiry, respondent no. 3 be kept under suspension. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner, present petition is disposed of with the direction that petitioner shall be at liberty to pass order placing respondent No. 3 under suspension while appointing the Inquiry Officer. The enquiry shall be initiated against respondent No.3 within a month as undertaken by learned counsel for the petitioner and shall be concluded within 6 months from today, in accordance with law. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 undertakes that respondent No. 3 shall participate in the enquiry proceedings, as proposed by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is, however, clarified that any observation made in the body of this judgment is only for the purpose of deciding this writ petition and shall not prejudice the mind of the Inquiry Officer. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE 06.09.2011 som