CWP No.14757 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CWP No.14757 of 1990 Date of Decision: 13.05.2011 Jai Chand Saini ... Petitioner Versus The Haryana State Federation of Consumers Cooperative Wholesale Stores Limited and Ors. ... Respondents 2. CWP No.5713 of 1992 Jaswant Pal ... Petitioner Versus The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana and Anr. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate, the petitioners. None for the respondents. ***** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. In CWP No.5713 of 1992, the only point involved in the writ petition is that the person who is competent to take disciplinary action for removal would be the Board of Directors and not the Managing Director for alleged proof of charges against the petitioner. The petitioner was making reference to Rule 9.1(a) of the Staff Service Rules and Rule 28(5) of the same Rules, to show that appointment of any staff shall be made by the Board of Directors except for the staff carrying initial basic pay upto Rs.250/- and Rule CWP No.14757 of 1990 -2- 28(5) states that a competent authority to impose the punishment of removal from service, would be the appointing authority. Since the petitioner had claimed that he was drawing a salary of more than Rs.250/-, the competent authority being the Board of Directors alone could have remove from service. 2. The removal of the petitioner had been made on the charges of causing stock shortage of Rs.4330.47, making some alterations in the attendance register and drawing excess TA/DA and also availing on some advance which is still not recovered from him. To all these charges, there had been justification given by the petitioner. It may not necessary to examine all factual details, since on the merits of the contention raised, the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have considered to hold that the petitioner had been guilty of the charges levied against him. On the tenability of the order as one having been issued by a person, who was incompetent, the second respondent-Management has joint issues in the written statement by urging that Rule 1-A had been amended and as per the amended Rules since 1983, the Managing Director was the competent authority to make appointment of staff of all categories carrying initial basic pay upto Rs.250/-. In fact the issue of competency was not even urged before the authority when the punishment was imposed or before the appellate authority when the petitioner was trying to assail the order passed by the competent authority. Though, I have not the copy of the amended rules, I will not think that this matter must be considered taking into consideration the objections which is raised by the petitioner. The issue of competency though it would have been relevant, I will not take that in favour of the petitioner by the only fact that if such an objection was tenable he could not have failed to take it at first instance or at the time when the petitioner ought to have been aware of the CWP No.14757 of 1990 -3- amended rules as referred to in the written statement of the second respondent. 3. I maintain the impugned orders and the writ petition is dismissed. 4. In CWP No.14757 of 1990, the reference is to the very same issue of tenability of the order of removal at the instance of a person, who claimed that it was not competent to pass the order. I have already held in the above case that the issue of competency was never urged before the authorities who passed the order or at the time when the order was assailed before the appellate authority. It has to be seen in the context of the written statement filed by the respondents stating therein that under the amended rules such power had been granted to the Managing Director himself. This writ petition is also dismissed for the same reasons as enumerated in the writ petition No.5713 of 1992. MAY 13, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE