CWP No.5511 of 1985 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.5511 of 1985 Date of Decision: 03.11.2008 Vishnu Datt Sharma (since deceased) through L.Rs. ...Petitioner v. Deputy Registrar (Planning), Cooperative ...Respondents Societies, Haryana and another. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia Present: Mr. R.S.Tacoria, Advocate for the petitioner. Dr. Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shireesh Gupta, Advocate. --- Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J (Oral). Petitioner Vishnu Datt Sharma who has preferred this petition during the pendency of the petition, had expired and writ petition is persued by his legal heirs who were impleaded as petitoners vide separate order passed by this Court on 18.09.2004. Vishnu Datt Sharma had filed writ petition before this Court seeking quashing of Annexure P-1 - order of dismissal passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation and Annexure P-3 whereby his appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana exercising the powers of Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana. Petitioner was nominated as accused in case FIR dated 18th September, 1973, registered at Police Station Chhapar, under Sections 420, 468, 467 IPC. In this FIR, the allegation against the petitioner was that he had fecilitated processing of a bogus loan case for purchase of a tractor for CWP No.5511 of 1985 [2] Rs.15,000/-. Loan could not be recovered from Baldev Singh to whom the loan was sanctioned as a false verification was given by the petitioner. Petitioner was convicted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri, under Section 420 IPC read with Section 109 IPC. On 13th February, 1982, petitioner was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had preferred an appeal in the Sessions Court which was admitted by the Court of Sessions on 19th February, 1982 and the sentence of the petitioner was suspended. However, on 15th March, 1983, the appeal was finally disposed of and the petitioner was ordered to be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. According to counsel for petitioner, petitioner due to conviction suffer no disqualification, rather grant of probation in fact is an opportunity given to petitioner to reform himself, therefore, once his conviction has entails no disqualification therefore, the order of dismissal cannot be sustained. He has further contended in the present case the order of dismissal has been passed by the Managing Director who was not competent to order dismissal. As Managing Director was appointing authority in case of the petitioner the order of dismissal could only be passed by authority higher than the appointing authority. Therefore, only Board (Executive Committee) could dismiss the petitioner. Various other arguments have been advanced. It was stated that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner when impugned order (Annexure P-1) was passed. During the course of arguments, it has been submitted that appeal of the petitioner was dismissed vide order Annexure P-3 only on the CWP No.5511 of 1985 [3] ground that the same is barred by limitation and the grounds raised by the petitioner therein have not been dealt on merits. It has been agreed by counsel for the parties that taking into consideration the fact that appeal before the criminal court was pending against conviction and after the conviction was set aside, the appeal was filed, the matter can be remitted back to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merits. It is not disputed that petitioner had filed various representations before the appeal was filed. Counsel for the parties are in agreement that this Court ought not to pronounce order on merits and it would be in the interest of parties that the appeal is decided on merits. Taking into account the statement made by counsel for the parties that delay in filing the appeal be condoned, giving my thoughtful consideration to this prayer, I find that it would be in the interest of all that the matter be remanded back to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merits and the delay, if any, in filing of the appeal stands condoned. Factum of long pendency of litigation is sufficient to direct the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal within six months after the receipt of certified copy of the order. The writ petition stands disposed off. ( Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia ) 03.11.2008 Judge sanjeev/RC