IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.486 of 2011 Date of Decision : January 12, 2011. The Ludhiana Aggarwala Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. And another .....Petitioners versus The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Yogesh Goel, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Monika Chhibbar Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Ms.Monika Chhibbar Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4. Let four copies of the writ petition be supplied to the learned State counsel during the course of day. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass there is no necessity to issue notice to respondent Nos.5 to 7 nor any counter reply from respondent Nos.1 to 4 is needed at this stage. The petitioner No.1-Society is aggrieved by the order dated 18.6.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, whereby petitioner No.2 has been directed to be relieved from the post of Manager and recovery of the amount of salary paid to him beyond C.W.P.No .486 of 2011 2 the age of 58 years from those members who are allegedly responsible for the retention of respondent No.2 in service beyond the age of 58 years. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that though petitioner No.2 has already been relieved from the assignment, however, the impugned order dated 18.6.2010 (Annexure P-4) cannot be sustained as no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to petitioner No.2 before passing the same. It is alleged that the impugned order is contrary to the findings returned by the Enquiry Officer vide his report dated 8.3.2010 (Annexure P-3). Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents on record, it appears that the petitioner-Society has not been given any show cause notice before passing the impugned order. Similarly, the findings returned by the Enquiry Officer vide his report dated 8.3.2010 (Annexure P-3) have also not been kept in view while passing the impugned order. Keeping in view the fact that petitioner No.2 has already been relieved by petitioner No.1-Society and the alleged irregularity, if any, is no longer subsisting, I allow this writ petition in part and set-aside the impugned order dated 18.6.2010 to the extent it directs recovery of surcharge from the members of the petitioner-Society. Dasti. January 12, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE