LPA No. 1022 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1022 of 2001 (O&M) Date of decision: November 27, 2009 Balwan Singh ...Appellant Versus The Registrar Co-operative Societies and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: None for the appellant. Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents. ORDER 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge, upholding the orders of authorities under the provisions of Haryana Co- operative Society Act, 1984, removing the appellant from the office of Director of the Cooperative Society under Section 35 of the Act. The appellant was elected as Director. However, a show cause notice dated 23.12.1998 was given to him alleging that he consumed alcohol, manhandled the chowkidar and damaged the property of the Cooperative Society. Respondent filed reply to the show cause notice. After considering the reply, order of removal was passed, which was confirmed in appeal. The appellant challenged the same by filing writ petition on the ground that principles of natural justice were not followed and that since he was acquitted in criminal case, order of removal on the same misconduct for LPA No. 1022 of 2001 2 which he was acquitted was not supplied. 2. Petition was opposed and impugned order was sought to be justified. 3. Learned Single Judge held that impugned order had valid basis and was not liable to be quashed. Acquittal in criminal case did not affect order of removal. 4. In this appeal, it has been submitted that the appellant was never associated in the inquiry and thus there was no compliance of principles of natural justice. 5. On 9.5.2001, Division Bench of this Court granted stay of operation of impugned judgment. It was also noted that operation of the impugned order remained stayed during pendency of the writ petition. 6. The impugned order was passed in the year 1999 and period of 10 years has lapsed since then. Learned counsel for the State points out that under Section 28 (4) of the Act, term of elected Director is 5 years which period is over. It appears that the appellant is no longer interested in pursuing this appeal on this ground. 7. Dismissed for non-prosecution. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 27, 2009 (GURDEV SINGH ) perm JUDGE