IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.37 of 2009 Date of Decision:28.9.2011 Pahlad Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. G.I. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Priyanka Dalal, A.A.G. Haryana. Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 9.4.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.1 and order dated 21.9.2007 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.2 whereby the Surcharge proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. While challenging the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said orders passed by Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority deciding the representation of the petitioner and the appeal are non speaking, discriminatory and against the principle of natural justice. The petitioner has specifically raised the argument that he was not able to appear before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana for the reasons beyond his control as he was to appear before the Court at Palwal. He had also intimated that in future further correspondence C.W.P No.37 of 2009 -2- be made at his new address. Subsequently, he could not appear on account of his ill health and a request for adjournment was made. However, he did not receive any notice from Registrar's office for hearing nor his prayer for providing of documents was accepted. However, all the said arguments including the other pleas raised by him before the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority have not been considered. In pursuance to the same, Surcharge proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner for an amount of Rs.58.10 lacs alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. There is no doubt that order dated 9.4.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.1 and order dated 21.9.2007 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.2 whereby the Surcharge proceedings were initiated against the petitioner are non speaking and the pleas raised by the petitioner have not been considered. In view of the above, order dated 9.4.2008 (Annexure P- 1) passed by respondent No.1 and order dated 21.9.2007 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.2 whereby the Surcharge proceedings were initiated against the petitioner are set aside and the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the Disciplinary Authority to decide the representation of the petitioner afresh after complying with the provisions of natural justice as well as by passing a speaking order after considering all the pleas raised by the petitioner. It is, however, made clear that that the petitioner shall appear before the Disciplinary Authority on 14.10.2011. 28.9.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE