CWP No.21266 of 2008.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.21266 of 2008 Date of Decision: 12.08.2010 **** Luxmi Narayan . . . . Petitioner VS. Secretary Cooperation (Appeals) & Ors. . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. MS Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. H.S. Brar, Addl. AG Punjab Mr. SS Bhinder, Advocate for respondent No.5 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is an Ex-Secretary of The Lambwali Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Ltd., District Faridkot. He seeks quashing of the resolution(s) dated 28.07.2004 (Annexure P5 & P6), whereby, he has been ordered to be dismissed from service on account of the “charges of embezzlement of heavy amount” AND “misusing his position” and playing “fraud” with the members of the Society. CWP No.21266 of 2008.doc - 2 – (2). The respondent-Society has filed its reply/affidavit in support of the impugned orders. (3). It is apparent from the documents on record that no regular enquiry was held before dismissing/terminating the services of the petitioner on specific allegations of misconduct. Interestingly, such a regular enquiry was initiated against the petitioner after termination of his services as is evident from the order dated 08.10.2004 (Annexure P3). (4). Before adverting further, it may be noticed that there are very serious allegations of embezzlement/ misappropriation of the funds of the Society and a criminal case was also got registered against the petitioner in which he was arrested and taken to judicial custody. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail vide order dated 30.09.2005 but with a rider that till the criminal case is decided, he shall not be re- instated in service and no arrears of pay, pension and/or any other monetary benefits shall be released to him. It was further directed that in case the petitioner was being paid any Subsistence Allowance, 50% of the same shall be CWP No.21266 of 2008.doc - 3 – deducted and adjusted against the alleged misappropriated funds of the Society. (5). The conditions imposed vide order dated 30.09.2005 are still operative as the criminal case is still going on. (6). In these circumstances and keeping in view the fact that the services of the petitioner ought not have been terminated/dismissed without first completing the enquiry proceedings, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order/resolution(s) dated 28.07.2004 (Annexure P5 & P6) with a further direction to respondent No.5-Society to conclude the departmental enquiry after giving the petitioner reasonable opportunity of being heard and thereafter only pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The enquiry proceedings shall be concluded within a period of six months and the petitioner shall be fully associated subject to his cooperation. It is made clear that in case of non-cooperation, the Enquiry Officer shall be entitled to proceed against the petitioner ex parte. (7). Ordinarily, when the termination order is set aside, the consequential benefits/Subsistence Allowance ought to flow and paid to the employee. However, keeping in view the order dated CWP No.21266 of 2008.doc - 4 – 30.09.2005 passed by this Court in the CRM No.49003-M of 2005 (Annexure R-5/1), it is directed that no arrears of Subsistence Allowance shall be paid to the petitioner for the interregnum period but his entitlement qua other benefits shall depend upon the final outcome of the departmental enquiry initiated against him. Suffice it to say that in case the petitioner is exonerated, then only he shall be entitled to the arrears of Subsistence Allowance. (8). Ordered accordingly. (9). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 12.08.2010 vishal shonkar