IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 7487 of 2003 DATE OF DECISION: September 26, 2008 Santosh Kumar …Petitioner Versus The Additional Registrar (Stores) Cooperative Societies, Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Hitesh Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Mamta Singhal Talwar, AAG, Haryana, for respondent No. 1. Mr. S.S. Dalal, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant petition is directed against order dated 28.12.2001 (P-3) passed by the Managing Director, The Bhiwani Central Co-operative Bank Limited-respondent No. 2, dismissing the petitioner from service by invoking the provisions of Rule 27.3(vi) and 35 of the Haryana State Central Cooperative Bank Staff Service C.W.P. No. 7487 of 2003 (Common Cadre) Rules, 1975 (for brevity, ‘the Rules’) with immediate effect because the petitioner has been found guilty of conduct amounting to deliberate dishonesty. The aforementioned order was upheld in appeal filed under Rule 31.1 of the Rules, vide order dated 1.4.2003, passed by respondent No. 1 (P-4). A perusal of both the orders shows that the petitioner was charge sheeted for embezzlement of Rs. 2,05,000/- and is alleged to have committed other irregularities also. The Enquiry Officer recorded categorical findings that the petitioner alongwith another person failed to deposit the money in the bank which was handed over to them by the depositors/account holders for deposit in their saving accounts. They had taken away the money and deposited it later. The bank is stated to have suffered a loss of Rs. 13,226/- on account of misappropriation made by the petitioner. Likewise, the second charge against the petitioner is that he allowed excess withdrawal of amount from his own account as well as from the saving account of the employees working in the branch with the help of Branch Manager and committed serous irregularities and the bank suffered a loss of Rs. 565/- due to his negligence. The inquiry report alongwith complete case was produced before the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 28.9.2001. The Board of Directors vide its resolution No. 25 decided to impose a major punishment under Rule 27.3 (vi) of the Rules and accordingly issued him with show cause notice under Rule 28-D of the Rules on 6.11.2001. However, no reply by the petitioner was submitted. In the meeting of the Board of Directors, held on 21.12.2001, despite the registered notice sent to the petitioner on 7.12.2001, he failed to show up and the Board of Directors vide its 2 C.W.P. No. 7487 of 2003 resolution No. 24, dated 21.12.2001, has dismissed him from service. The appeal has been rejected by respondent No. 1 as no irregularity in conducting of inquiry has been found. After hearing learned counsel at a considerable length we find that no relief could be granted to the petitioner in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner has been afforded ample opportunity to defend himself. He has appeared at some stage but has preferred not to appear at another stage. The charges against the petitioner are on sound footing and no legal lacuna in the enquiry has been pointed out warranting admission of the petition. The principles of natural justice and the procedure for holding inquiry have been meticulously followed. We have also perused the original record to find out whether only one charge sheet was served on the petitioner. The record has been produced and the stand of the respondents is vindicated that there were two charge sheets issued to him on 24.10.2002 and the other on 3.10.2000. The writ petition is wholly misconceived and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) September 26, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 3