IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4745 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision:15.11.2011 Mangat Ram son of Shri Chhaju Ram ...Petitioner versus The Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Sector 17, Chandigarh, and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. R.Kartikey, Advocate, for Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Sahu, Advocate, for respondents 1 to 3. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner challenges the charge-sheet dated 08.04.1987 and the order of the transfer of the petitioner dated 09.07.1987 on the ground that an earlier charge-sheet framed on the same cause of action was the subject of challenge before a Civil Court and at the time when the suit was pending, the respondent made a statement through his witness that the charge-sheet was being withdrawn and the order appointing the Enquiry Officer on 22.07.1983 was directed not to take action against the petitioner. On Civil Writ Petition No.4745 of 1987 (O&M) - 2 - the basis of this statement, the Court found that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree that the charge-sheet was null and void and the appointment of the Enquiry Officer was illegal, since at the time of the institution of the suit, the charge-sheet did exist and the Enquiry Officer had been appointed and the subsequent order withdrawing the charge-sheet or a direction not to proceed with the enquiry did not bar the plaintiff from securing the decree. 2. Subsequent to the disposal of the suit, it appears that a fresh charge-sheet was issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, who was the competent authority to issue the same as per the Rules. The charge-sheet had been served by the competent authority. 3. It can be seen that no point of time there was an adjudication on merits on the particular charge which was issued against the petitioner, namely, of his absence from duty from 17.11.1980 to 26.01.1981 and from 09.07.1981 to 09.12.1981 without waiting the same to be sanctioned and proceeding to go on leave in spite of the non-sanction of such leave. What the respondents have done was to recall the charge-sheet which had been issued by a person, who was not competent to issue and substituting the same with the charge-sheet by the Registrar, who was the competent person to issue the charge-sheet and proceeded further with the enquiry. The petitioner was not justified in coming by means of a writ petition immediately and seeking for quashing of Civil Writ Petition No.4745 of 1987 (O&M) - 3 - the writ petition itself. I find from the order issuing notice on 30.07.1987, the Court had specifically declined to grant stay. Subsequently, it was admitted on 20.10.1987 and the Court had also allowed for the enquiry to continue but directed that the final order ought not to be passed. I have unfortunately no information even now as to what was the outcome of the enquiry. The respondent shall be at liberty to take the proceedings further on from where the enquiry concluded and take a decision in accordance with law. 4. It appears that the petitioner had continued in service and had also retired. Any decision is taken by the respondent, if at all such a course of action is contemplated, shall properly take notice of the subsequent event of the petitioner continuing in service and retiring even during the pendency of the proceedings. 5. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 15.11.2011 sanjeev