IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 18007 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 03.09.2009 Dr. S.P. Gupta ... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Puri, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. D.S. Patwalia & Mr. Alok Jagga, Advocates, for respondent No.4. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner has filed the instant petition against the order dated 13.6.2008, passed by the Additional Registrar (G), Cooperative Societies, Punjab, vide which the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') against the order dated 14.9.2007, passed by the Board of Directors of the Punjab State Federation of Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited (Milkfed), has been dismissed, being not maintainable. CWP No. 18007 of 2008 -2- In the present case, when the petitioner was posted as General Manager in the Head Office and was about to retire from service, he was served with a charge sheet dated dated 22.5.2006 on account of certain irregularities of allowing the credit sale to the various parties and for not getting the recoveries effected, which resulted into loss to the Milkfed. To the said charge sheet, reply was filed by the petitioner, which was not found satisfactory by the disciplinary authority. Consequently, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer, after providing opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself and full opportunity of hearing, held him guilty of some of the charges. Copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner and after considering the entire matter, the disciplinary authority passed the order of penalty dated 30.1.2007, ordering the recovery from the petitioner, to the extent of 50% of the total loss of Rs. 18,64,559.32 and Rs.3,84,093/- as interest. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner filed appeal under Rule 2.4 of the Milkfed Common Cadre Service Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as `the Service Rules'), before the Board of Directors of the Milkfed. The appeal was also dismissed. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by way of revision petition under Section 69 of the Act before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab. Vide the impugned order dated 13.6.2008, the revision petition has been dismissed, while observing as under : I have carefully considered the arguments adduced by Ld. counsel for the parties and have perused the record brought on the file. In the instant case the order passed by the Managing Director Milkfed and the appellate order passed by the Board of CWP No. 18007 of 2008 -3- Directors of Milkfed under challenge. According to the judgment cited by the Ld. counsel for the respondent the revision was maintainable only against an order passed by an authority subordinate to RCS Punjab, whereas the Managing Director cannot be categorized as such an authority. In view of the citation by the learned counsel for the respondent the revision petition is dismissed being not maintainable.” This Court in The Amritsar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Amritsar Versus Deputy Registrar (E) Cooperative Societies, Punjab and another (CWP No. 19790 of 2008, decided on 15.7.2009), has considered the issue of maintainability of revision petition under Section 69 of the Act against an order passed by the Board of Directors of the Society and has held as under :- “Section 69 of the Act, which provides the filing of revision, reads as under : 69. Revision – The State Government and the Registrar may, suo moto or on the application of a party to a reference, call for and examine the record of any proceedings in which no appeal under Section 68 lies to the Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed and if in any case it appears to the Government or the Registrar that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled or revised, the Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, may, after giving persons affected thereby an opportunity of being heard, pass such order thereon as it or he may deem fit. A perusal of the aforesaid provision clearly indicates that the CWP No. 18007 of 2008 -4- State Government or the Registrar has been empowered to call for and examine the record of any proceeding under the Act in which no appeal under Section 68 lies to the Government or the Registrar, for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed by the authorities under the Act. A Division Bench of this Court in Rajinder Singh's case (supra) has considered this aspect of the matter. In that case, elections of the Managing Committee of a Primary Cooperative Society were held and thereafter, Rajinder Singh (petitioner in that case) was elected a Director from Zone No.3. Harjit Singh (the unsuccessful candidate) filed a revision petition under Section 69 of the Act, challenging the election programme. The said revision petition was entertained by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies and interim order restraining Rajinder Singh from performing his duties as Director was passed. In the writ petition, the said order passed in revision petition was quashed by this Court, while holding that the revision petition under Section 69 of the Act, filed by Harjit Singh was not maintainable. It was observed as under : “A petition can be entertained by the State Government or the Registrar as the case may be for the purpose of examining legality or propriety of any decision or the order passed in any proceedings under the Act. There was no order passed by any authority which was challenged before the Registrar nor were any proceedings pending, the propriety of which could be examined by him. What was sought to be challenged in the revision petition was the election programme approved by the Deputy Registrar exercising the powers of the Registrar and not the election of the petitioner as a Director. In this view of the matter, the order of the Registrar restraining the petitioner from performing his CWP No. 18007 of 2008 -5- duties as an elected Director of the Bank is without jurisdiction.” Even in Gurnam Kaur v. State of Punjab etc. 1992 (2) PLR 746, the Full Bench of this Court has observed that revision under Section 69 of the Act lies against the order passed by the subordinate authorities under the Act. In my opinion, the above said decisions squarely cover the controversy involved in the instant petition. In the present case also, the suspension order and the order of issuance of charge sheet were not passed by any authority or in any proceedings under the Act. Those orders were passed by the Society under the Service Rules. The two judgments relied upon by learned counsel for respondent do not support the case of respondent No.2, particularly in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In both the cases, revision petition was filed against the order passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Deputy Registrar/Assistant Registrar, which was an authority under the Act. In the instant case, the suspension order and the order of issuance of charge sheet were passed by the officers of the Society, therefore, against those orders, revision under Section 69 of the Act was not maintainable.” On 24.8.2009, on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case was adjourned to enable him to go through the aforesaid judgment. Today, learned counsel could not cite any contrary judgment. However, he submits that before amendment of the Service Rules, against the order of the Appellate Authority, an aggrieved employee was having a right to file revision before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The said Rule has been deleted. He submits that after deletion of the said Rule, the aggrieved employee has got a right to file revision petition under Section 69 CWP No. 18007 of 2008 -6- of the Act, against the order passed by the Board of Directors of the Society. This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. A revision petition under Section 69 of the Act can be filed against the order, against which no appeal under Section 68 of the Act lies to the Government or the Registrar. This Court has already held that no revision under Section 69 of the Act is maintainable against the order passed by the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority of the society under the Service Rules. The revision lies only against the order, passed by the Deputy Registrar, Assistant Registrar or an authority under the Act. Since in the instant case, the order was passed by the Board of Directors of the Society, therefore, respondent No.3 has rightly dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner, being not maintainable. Thus, I do not find any illegality in the said order. Neither the petitioner has assailed the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority in the writ petition nor any argument in this regard has been raised, during the course of arguments. In view of the above, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed. September 03, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE