LPA No. 795 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 795 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: August 24, 2011 Harpal Singh and another ...Appellants Versus Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Jalandhar and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. M.S. Kang, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Respondent No.3 Ex-parte. Mr. Harit Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? GURDEV SINGH, J. This appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been preferred by Harpal Singh and Sukhbir Singh—appellants, against the order dated 21.4.2011, vide which the learned Single Judge, dismissed the writ petition filed by them for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 1.9.2010 (Annexure P/4) passed by respondent No.2 and order dated 11.3.2011 (Annexure P/6) passed by respondent No.1 and upholding the resolution dated 20.11.2009 (Annexure P/3), dismissing LPA No. 795 of 2011 2 Tarlochan Singh-respondent No.4 from service. Tarlochan Singh-respondent No.4 was working as a salesman in respondent No.3-Society, against whom a complaint was filed by the President of the Society, which was entrusted to Som Nath, Inspector by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jalandhar. It was found by that Inspector that the said respondent misappropriated an amount of ` 86650/-. During the audit of the Society for the period 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009, respondent No.4 was found to have embezzled a sum of ` 699775.26 paise. An inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Committee, which submitted its report against respondent No.4 and his objections to the same were called. He submitted his reply dated 31.10.2009. After giving an opportunity of hearing to respondent No.4, the Managing Committee of the Society passed the resolution dated 20.11.2009 dismissing him from the service. He filed an appeal against that order which was accepted by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jalandhar, vide order dated 19.5.2010. After passing of that order, respondent No.4 started making efforts to get himself reinstated and even the President of the Society and some of the Committee members were also anxious to reinstate him. Therefore, the petitioners and one Jarnail Singh, as members of the Society, filed a revision against that order. That revision was dismissed, vide order dated 11.3.2011 (Annexure P/6), on the ground that the petitioners had not been authorized to file the same by the Society. The orders were challenged by filing writ petition relatable to the instant appeal. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the revision petition filed by the petitioners and another member of the Society was maintainable, as per Rule 15 (ii) of the Punjab State Cooperative LPA No. 795 of 2011 3 Agricultural Service Society Service Rules, 1997 (for brevity—'the Rules'), as they were aggrieved by the order dated 19.5.2010. It was also contended that they felt aggrieved by the order passed in the revision. However, those submissions did not find favour with the learned Single Judge and he came to the following conclusion:- “As per Rule 15 (i) of the Rules, the right of appeal, as submitted by the counsel for the petitioners, is restricted to the employees only. The reason is quite obvious that it would only be against an order which is passed against an employee. There could have been a decision by the majority of the members of the Committee passed in favour of an employee and, there again the other members of the Managing Committee of the Society would feel also aggrieved but that appeal has not been provided under the Statute, meaning thereby that it restricts only to employees who may be aggrieved by the decision taken by the Managing Committee. The revision is a continuation of an appeal and is only precursor and emanates after a decision has been taken on an appeal. If the right of appeal has been restricted to an employee and there again the members of the Society are not provided with statutory right merely because there is no such qualification attached in Sub-Rule (ii), the scope of the same cannot be enlarged to the extent of giving a right of revision to the some or any of the members of the Managing Committee. Only two, therefore, aggrieved parties against an earlier order passed in an appeal could either be an employee or the Co-operative society depending upon the LPA No. 795 of 2011 4 outcome of the appeal.” As per Rule 15 (ii) of the Rules, a revision petition can be filed against the order of the Deputy Registrar passed in appeal within 60 days of the order before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies of the Division whose decision shall be final, binding and conclusive. We do not agree with the finding of the learned Single Judge that such a revision can only be filed by the Society and not by the members thereof. The controversy has been set at rest by the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court rendered in CWP 4922 of 1989 (Jasbir Singh and others versus Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division and others) decided on 14.7.2011. The following principles were laid down therein:- “(i) The State Government or the Registrar under Section 69 of the Punjab Act and the State Government under Section 115 of the Haryana Act can exercise its suo motu revisional jurisdiction on the application made by an aggrieved person, whether he is or not a party to the reference. (ii) The remedy of revision is barred only in case where appeal against the impugned order lies under Section 68 of the Punjab Act or under Section 114 of the Haryana Act. (iii) The remedy of revision is not barred in those cases where aggrieved person has a right of appeal under the Statutory Service Rules or Common Cadre Rules. An aggrieved party can challenge the order of Registrar or Deputy Registrar passed as an Appellate Authority under the LPA No. 795 of 2011 5 Statutory Rules or Common Cadre Rules by filing a revision under Section 69 of the Punjab Act or under Section 115 of the Haryana Act as no remedy of appeal has been provided under Section 68 of the Punjab Act or under Section 114 of the Haryana Act against such order. But, if the appellate order is passed by the official of the Society and not by the Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Society, no revision is maintainable against such an order. The revision is maintainable only against the order passed by the authority under the Act or a proceeding arising out of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. (iv) The remedy of revision either suo motu or otherwise cannot be invoked against an order passed by the Society. The said power can be exercised against the decision or order passed by the authority under the Act or a proceeding arising out of the Act or the Rules framed there-under. (v) The suo motu power of revision cannot be exercised by the State Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, where a revision under Section 69 of the Punjab Act or under Section 115 of the Haryana Act itself is not maintainable either on the ground that against the impugned order an appeal has been provided under Section 68 of the Punjab Act or under Section 114 of the Haryana Act or on any other ground. In case the LPA No. 795 of 2011 6 Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, exercise suo motu power of revision on the application of an aggrieved party or otherwise, it must be specifically so stated in the order itself.” From these principles, it becomes very much clear that the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised suo motu on the application made by the aggrieved person, whether he is or not a party to the reference. The petitioners being the members of the Society are aggrieved persons as they do not want a dishonest person to be a salesman of the Society. Every member is bound to be affected by the embezzlement committed by the salesmen. Therefore, revisional jurisdiction could have been exercised suo motu by the Joint Registrar on the application moved by the petitioners and another member of the Society. It is pertinent to note that the Joint Registrar on the one hand came to the conclusion that the petitioners had not been authorized to file the petition, by the Society and on the other hand, he recorded a specific finding that no fault or illegality was found in the order under revision. It was in view of that finding that revision petition was dismissed. Once the revisional authority came to the conclusion that the revision was not maintainable by the petitioners, the same could not have been decided on merits. Any such order passed on merits is nonest in the eyes of law. Once a finding has been recorded by this Court that the petitioners had the locus standi to file the revision, certainly the same is to be decided on merits. Therefore, the petitioners are relegated to their remedy of revision. The Joint Director is directed to decide the same afresh on merits. LPA No. 795 of 2011 7 The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (M.M. KUMAR) (GURDEV SINGH ) JUDGE JUDGE August 24, 2011 prem