IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA 208 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : JULY 17, 2008 BHARPUR SINGH ....... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate, for the appellant. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This is plaintiff's Regular Second Appeal against the judgment of affirmance. A suit for declaration was filed to the effect that order dated 31.8.1999 of the Administrative Committee of the Punjab State Cooperative Bank Limited (defendant No.2) whereby the plaintiff was dismissed from service and order dated 16.8.2000 passed in appeal, were illegal. It seems that there were allegations of embezzlement and misappropriation of bank money against the appellant-plaintiff, who was Manager in a branch of the Bank and was responsible as supervisory officer. Cashier and Junior Accountant were also involved as entries in the books were made by them. RSA 208 of 2008 2 The only contention raised by the learned counsel is that the Inquiry Officer appointed in this case was a retired I.A.S. officer. Rule 1.2 of the Punjab State Cooperative Financing Institutions Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1970-71, provides that the authority competent to impose the penalty may, if circumstances permit, hold an inquiry into the charge or charges or cause such an inquiry to be held by an officer superior to the person against whom the action was proposed to be taken for the purposes of ascertaining the truth or otherwise of the charge or charges. In view of this provision, it has been contended that the violation of the rule itself entitles the plaintiff to the relief of declaration that the impugned orders are illegal. The issue has been dealt with by the first appellate Court in para-20 of its judgment, which reads as under:- “20. As far as the appointment of Enquiry Officer is concerned, that cannot be taken to be in any way illegal or against the Rules. Shri M.M. Huria, I.A.S. (Retired) was an independent Enquiry Officer. No allegation of bias or partisan had been levelled against him. He was not in any way junior to the plaintiff in rank. In such a situation the punishing authority could not be taken to have done anything wrong by entrusting the enquiry to such an independent Enquiry Officer. More so when the enquiry is not shown to have been conducted in an arbitrary manner or against the procedural law I fail to understand as to how the rights of the plaintiff could be taken to have been prejudicially affected. This contention of the appellant that enquiry was not conducted by the competent Enquiry officer is devoid of merits.” I have considered the contention of the learned counsel and RSA 208 of 2008 3 the import of Rule 1.2 also. Learned counsel has not been able to point out that any prejudice has been caused to the plaintiff. Rather, a person who was alien to the department would be more honest and independent in discharge of his duties as an Inquiry Officer. Undisputedly, the Inquiry Officer was a retired I.A.S. officer. I do not find the reasons given by the courts below to be, in any way, illegal or that any prejudice has been caused to the rights of the plaintiff with the appointment of a retired officer to inquire into the charges. Principles of natural justice have been followed and the departmental rules for giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner have been complied with. No other point has been argued before me. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal is dismissed in limine. July 17, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE