IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.947 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:22.1.2010 Kashmir Kaur -----Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. M.S. Kang, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Balwinder Singh Shera, Advocate for respondent No.5. --- Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant arising out of order of dismissal from service on the ground of alternative remedy of filing revision under section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) LPA No.947 of 21009 (O&M) 2. Case of the appellant is that her husband Nirmal Singh joined service with respondent No.5 Cooperative Society in the year 1980 as Salesman. He was dismissed from service in the year 2005 without any enquiry or charge sheet, though he had rendered service for about 25 years. He filed an appeal under the service rules viz. the Punjab State Cooperative Agri. Service Societies Employees Service Rules, 1997 to the Deputy Registrar which was allowed vide order dated 13.3.2006 and order of dismissal was set aside. It was held that order having been passed without enquiry could not be sustained. Thereafter, order dated 30.4.2007 was passed again dismissing him from service, without following any procedure. He again filed appeal before the Deputy Registrar who dismissed the same vide order dated 28.11.2007 by holding that the appellant had been given full opportunity to present his case. He then preferred a petition under Section 3(4) of the Act against the said order which was dismissed on the ground that he had alternative remedy of filing revision petition 2 LPA No.947 of 21009 (O&M) under Section 69 of the Act vide order dated 15.12.2008, which view was affirmed by Secretary, Cooperation vide order dated 19.5.2009. Meanwhile, Nirmal Singh having died, the appellant filed writ petition in this Court with the submission that his remedy under section 3(4) of the Act was not barred and that remedy under section 69 of the Act was not available. Alternatively, it was submitted that the view taken by the Deputy Registrar on merits was against record. 3. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that since the appellant had alternative remedy of revision under section 69 of the Act, he could take that remedy and writ petition could not be entertained. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant raised following contentions:- i) Nirmal Singh having rendered more than 25 years service, dismissal without 3 LPA No.947 of 21009 (O&M) enquiry was illegal as held by appellate authority vide order dated 13.3.2006 and fresh order of dismissal dated 30.4.2007 suffered from same infirmity; ii) The appellate authority, the Deputy Registrar, vide order dated 28.11.2007 illegally upheld the order of dismissal by wrongly mentioning that enquiry had been duly held; iii) The Registrar erred in rejecting petition under Section 3(4) of the Act by holding that remedy of the appellant was under Section 69 of the Act; iv) Learned Single Judge should have either remanded the matter to the Registrar or gone into merits of the case. 6. Learned counsel for the society supported the impugned order but did not dispute that order of dismissal was not based on any enquiry. He admitted that no enquiry report was on record. 7. In view of admitted factual position, we are of the view that order dated 28.11.2007 passed by statutory 4 LPA No.947 of 21009 (O&M) appellate authority is against record. The statutory appeal of the appellant should have been allowed. 8. There being patent error in impugned order of the appellate authority, it was not necessary to relegate the appellate to alternative remedy, if any. By a separate order passed today in LPA No.1230 of 2009 (Sukhwant Singh v. Deputy Registrar (Enforcement) Coop.Societies, Punjab Chandigarh and others), we have held that revision under Section 69 is not available except in proceedings under reference under section 55 of the Act. Contentions raised by the appellant have, thus, to be accepted. 9. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned orders including order of dismissal dated 30.9.2007 passed against husband of the appellant. He will be deemed to be in service till the date of his death. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly states that he will not claim any back wages for the period he did not work but he be held entitled to all other consequential benefits which may be available to the appellant treating 5 LPA No.947 of 21009 (O&M) her husband to be in service till the date of his death including wages for the period her husband worked. We hold the appellant to be entitled to all dues till the order of dismissal dated 30.4.2007 and all consequential benefits treating the appellant’s husband to be in service on the date of his death except back wages after 30.4.2007 till his death. The benefits be worked out and paid to the appellant within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. The appeal is disposed of. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge January 22, 2010 ( Alok Singh) ‘gs’ Judge 6