C.M. No.1559-LPA of 2009 and -1- LPA No.590 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No.1559-LPA of 2009 and LPA No.590 of 2009 Date of decision: 28.01.2010 Prem Singh ............Appellant Versus The Presiding Officer and another ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Satish Jain, Advocate for the appellant. ALOK SINGH, J. C.M. No.1559-LPA of 2009 For the reasons mentioned, application is allowed and the delay of 19 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. LPA No.590 of 2009 1. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment dated 16.2.2009 passed by learned Single Judge, thereby dismissing C.M. No.1559-LPA of 2009 and -2- LPA No.590 of 2009 CWP No.2402 of 2009 confirming the award dated 10.09.2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, present L.P.A. has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that petitioner/appellant was suspended from service on 30.12.1982 on the charges of embezzlement in the Society. Regular charge-sheet was issued on 09.08.1984. Appellant-workman submitted his reply to the charge-sheet, however, the same was not found to be satisfactory. A regular enquiry was initiated against the workman vide order dated 2.6.1984. In the enquiry, workman did not participate despite of repeated opportunities being given to him. Detailed enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer against the workman. Show Cause Notice was issued to the workman on 8.8.1984 to which detailed reply was submitted by the workman. Opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the workman, in which workman appeared and made a prayer for re-enquiry. Request of the workman to hold enquiry de novo was accepted. In the fresh enquiry, workman participated. The enquiry report was submitted, on the basis of which, again show cause notice dated 18.3.1987 was issued alongwith enquiry report to the workman. The workman again submitted his reply to the second show cause notice and was given a personal hearing by the Board of Directors and ultimately, his service was terminated vide order dated 27.3.1987. C.M. No.1559-LPA of 2009 and -3- LPA No.590 of 2009 3. Admittedly, arbitration proceedings were also held against the workman for embezzled amount as per the provision of Cooperative Societies Act, in which also, award was passed for the recovery of the embezzled amount on 13.3.1996 and amount shown in the award was thereafter deposited by the workman in the Bank. 4. Although service of the workman was terminated on 27.3.1987, however, reference whereof was made in the year 2000. Learned Labour Court while rejecting the claim of the workman vide award dated 8.10.2008 has observed as under:- “Thus, the workman/applicant opted to exhaust the remedy available to him in one channel. His appeal has also been dismissed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. In these circumstances, it is not open to the applicant/workman to continue the litigation against the department for an indefinite period. Once, he has admitted the embezzlement and deposited the amount with the department, he has no locus-standi and cause of action to file the present claim statement. More so, when the applicant has been held guilty of embezzlement of the Government money and has been found so in the arbitration proceedings, he is now estopped from contesting/filing the present reference by his own act and conduct. Accordingly, these issues are decided in favour of the management C.M. No.1559-LPA of 2009 and -4- LPA No.590 of 2009 and against the workman.” 5. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 6. Once at the request of workman, re-enquiry/fresh enquiry was held and on the basis of the enquiry report, show cause notice was issued to the workman, and workman was personally heard, then no fault can be pointed out in the enquiry. Moreover, once embezzlement is proved, not only in the departmental disciplinary enquiry but also in the arbitration proceedings, hence, termination of the service of the workman can not be said to be illegal. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any mistake/illegality either in the award or in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) 28.01.2010 JUDGE ashish