IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 9918 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 27.07.2009 Manjit Singh .... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. In the year 1982, the petitioner was appointed as Salesman on ad-hoc basis in the Bhikhi Khatra Cooperative Agricultural Society Ltd., Bhikhi Khatra, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana (respondent No.6 herein). Subsequently, on 1.10.1983, his services were regularised. Since then, the petitioner is working as such. On 31.12.2003, he was given temporary charge of the post of Secretary in his own pay scale of Salesman, as the services of the regular Secretary were terminated. A complaint was made against the petitioner that he is not a Matriculate and he got employment of Salesman by producing a forged Certificate of Matric. It was also complained that being a non- Matric, he was not entitled to be appointed/promoted to the post of CWP No. 9918 of 2009 -2- Secretary. The matter was enquired into by the Inspector, Co-operative Societies and the report was submitted to the Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Payal. In the report, it was stated that the the forged certificate was not produced by the petitioner at the time of his appointment as Salesman, therefore, the complaint be filed. The Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies, after considering the said report, wrote a letter dated 18.10.2007 (Annexure P-6) to the President of respondent No.6 Society to take action against the petitioner, as he does not fulfill the minimum qualification for the post of Secretary and after taking action against the petitioner, he be informed. Against the abovesaid order, the petitioner filed revision petition under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, which was allowed by the Additional Registrar (G), Cooperative Societies, Punjab, vide order dated 11.12.2008 (Annexure P-7), while observing as under : “After hearing the arguments of both the parties, it has been found that Sh. Manjit Singh is just holding adhoc charge of the Secretary of the Society. No action is required on the letter of the ARCS Payal. Advocate for the respondent society has admitted that they have no objection if the orders of ARCS Payal is quashed. Therefore, the petition is accepted and ARCS order dated 18.10.08 annexure P-6 is set aside.” The said order was challenged by complainant Swaran Singh (respondent No. 7 herein) by filing a revision petition before the Financial CWP No. 9918 of 2009 -3- Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, who vide order dated 9.3.2009 (Annexure P-10) allowed the said petition and set aside the aforesaid order dated 11.12.2008, while observing as under : “I have perused the record on the file and have considered the contention raised by the learned counsel. The documents on the record as well as information make it clear that respondent no.5 is not matriculate. The Punjab School Education Board has clearly mentioned that Manjit Singh has not passed Matric and had rather got re-appear in Maths. The respondent Manjit Singh has also not given any evidence that he has passed Matric. The record makes it clear that Manjit Singh had beenappointed as a Salesman and as per the service regulation, Matriculation was necessary for this appointment. The letters issued by the Deputy Registrar and the Assistant Registrar are on record and they make one thing very clear that the employee does not fulfill the qualifications. Therefore, it is necessary that appropriate action should be taken against this employee as per rules/instructions and if his services are to be terminated then appropriate legal procedure should be adopted for termination of his services. The order dated 11.12.2008 of the Additional Registrar (G) Cooperative Societies Punjab has resulted in a laughable situation. In this decision it is written that at this time Manjit Singh is working as Secretary on temporary basis and therefore no action is required to be taken on the basis of letter dated 18.10.2007 of Assistant Registrar, Payal. The Additional Registrar should have gone into the depths of the matter and should have directed appropriate action and it should have been clarified whether Manjit Singh's appointment as Salesman was CWP No. 9918 of 2009 -4- correct or not. However, this has not been done. Under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, revision petition against any order can be heard by both, the Registrar Cooperative Societies and the Government. If Registrar Cooperative Societies hears the revision then ordinarily second revision petition should not be filed but it does not mean that the Government has no right to hear second revision. If it is considered appropriate that the lower officials have committed an irregularity which is required to be corrected then the Government has the full right to hear second revision petition. In this case, the order dated 11.12.2008 of the Additional Registrar cannot be considered to be correct on any basis. Therefore, a revision petition against this decision was necessary to be decided. In accordance with the above, the revision petition is accepted and the order dated 11.12.2008 of the Additional Registrar is set aside. The Registrar Cooperative Societies is directed to personally see to it that necessary action is taken in accordance with the instructions/rules and if the termination of services of respondent no.5 is required then his services may be terminated after adopting appropriate procedure. It is also written to the Registrar Cooperative Societies that an explanation be sought from the Additional Registrar (G) in this case and the report be sent to Government so that decision can be taken for further proceedings in accordance with rules.” The said order has been challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and going through the various orders, annexed with the petition, I am of the opinion that the CWP No. 9918 of 2009 -5- impugned order does not require any interference in exercise of the equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is a conceded position in the instant case that the petitioner is not a Matriculate and the Certificate in his name showing him as Matric pass is a forged document. It is the case of the petitioner that he did not produce that certificate at the time of getting employment in the respondent No.6 Society. It has been observed in the impugned order that the minimum qualification for the appointment on the post of Salesman in a Society is Matric. However, during the course of arguments, it was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of getting appointment of the petitioner, no rules were applicable, prescribing Matric as qualification for the appointment of Salesman. On a specific question as to whether any person, who is not Matric pass, has been appointed as Salesman in the respondent No.6 Society, counsel for the petitioner could not give any such example. Learned counsel for the petitioner only emphasised on the argument that the second revision was not maintainable before the Financial Commissioner, therefore, the impugned order is without jurisdiction. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Financial Commissioner Cooperation, Punjab, has mentioned that ordinarily second revision petitions are not entertained, but it has been stated that the Government in exceptional cases has a right to hear the second petition. Even without going into the controversy as to whether the second revision petition was maintainable or not, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. If the impugned order is set aside on the CWP No. 9918 of 2009 -6- ground of non-maintainability of the second revision petition, then in my opinion it will result into existence of another illegal order. The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Payal, wrote a letter to the President of the respondent No.6 Society to look into the matter and take appropriate action against the petitioner, who was not eligible to be appointed as Secretary. It is conceded position that for appointment of Secretary, a person must be Matriculate. The Assistant Registrar wrote a letter only to that extent. The said letter has been illegally quashed by the Additional Registrar (G), without any justification and reason. In my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter should be enquired into as to whether the petitioner, at the time of his appointment, was eligible or he has procured the said appointment by producing a forged Certificate. The Financial Commissioner, in my opinion, is fully justified in ordering that the matter be enquired into and in case, it is found that the petitioner got the appointment on the basis of forged certificate, the suitable action be taken against him under the service rules. Thus, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order, in exercise of the equitable jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. However, it is made clear that before taking action against the petitioner on the aforesaid ground, he should be associated in the enquiry and opportunity of hearing be provided. July 27, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE