C.W.P. No.15618 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.15618 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 09, 2009 The Fatehgarh Sahib Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.,Sirhind .....PETITIONER Versus The Joint Registrar(Banking), Cooperative Societies,Punjab, Chandigarh and others ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.Dharam Vir Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Harit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The Fatehgarh Sahib Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Sirhind has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 13.8.2009 passed by the Joint Registrar (Banking), Cooperative Societies, Punjab (respondent No.1 herein), whereby the revision of the petitioner bank was partly allowed and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 14.5.2008, was set aside. However, the punishment of dismissal imposed by the punishing authority was modified as to reverting respondent No.3 one step below the post held by him at the time of dismissal. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order. In this case, the departmental proceedings were initiated C.W.P. No.15618 of 2009 -2- against respondent No.3 by the supervisory committee of the petitioner bank, which resulted into his dismissal from service. The Appellate Authority set aside the punishment imposed on respondent No.3 on the ground that the supervisory committee of the petitioner bank was incompetent to initiate the proceedings, therefore, the entire proceedings, including the punishment, were liable to be set aside and, consequently, the order of punishment was quashed and the petitioner bank was given liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law, if so required. The revision filed by the petitioner bank under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 against the above-said order was allowed by the Joint Registrar (Banking), Cooperative Societies, Punjab and it was held that in view of the amendment made in Rule 9 of the Punjab State Cooperative Financing Institutions Service (Non Common Cadre) Rules, 1958, in absence of the Board of Directors, the punishing committee was empowered to decide the punishment cases. Therefore, the initiation of the departmental proceedings by the supervisory committee was not illegal. However, after upholding the competence of the supervisory committee to initiate the departmental proceedings and the punishing authority to pass the order of punishment, the revisional authority, while keeping in view the nature of allegations and the fact that the entire amount of the bank has been recovered and also keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, modified the order of punishment imposed on respondent No.3 by reverting him one step below the post held by him at the time of dismissal. Against the said order, the instant petition has been filed. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and going through the orders passed by the revisional as well as Appellate Authorities, it C.W.P. No.15618 of 2009 -3- appears that at the time of hearing before the revisional authority, a consensus was arrived at on the reduction of punishment as the counsel for respondent No.3 had made a statement in the court that respondent No.3 would not claim any arrears for the period he had remained out of service. Accordingly, an affidavit of respondent No.3 was also taken on record in this regard. After taking into consideration the said statement, the order of punishment was modified with the observation that respondent No.3 would not be entitled to any pay or allowance or arrears for the period he remained out of service. It is admitted position that respondent No.3 has deposited the entire loan amount with the petitioner bank and as such no loss has been caused to the bank. In these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the said order, whereby the revisional authority exercised its discretion, does not require any interference. Dismissed. October 09, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE