IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15004 of 2009 Date of decision: 13th July, 2010 Rajowal Harijan Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. … Petitioner Versus Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies, Patiala and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. I.S. Saggu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Puri, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate for respondent No.4. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) At the time of first appointment of one Ram Lal as a Salesman, on daily-wage basis, respondent No.4-Ajit Singh gave the following undertaking, which was termed by the petitioner-Society as a guarantee. The undertaking reads as under: “I Ajit Singh s/o Pritam Singh, r/o village Bagga Khurd, District Ludhiana give agreement to the society that Sh.Ram Lal s/o Channan Singh, r/o village Bagga Khurd, District Ludhiana, who has been appointed as Salesman (Consumer Cell) on temporary basis, I will be responsible till the continuation of this appointment. If the Salesman committed any irregularity in the working of the society or violate orders of the department or cause any loss during his tenure, committed embezzlement, tampered the record of the society for that I will be fully responsible. Civil Writ Petition No.15004 of 2009 Sd/- Ajit Singh” In view of the arguments advanced and the findings recorded by appellate and revisional authorities below, it will be necessary to lay emphasis on the words “this appointment”, therefore, emphasis has been supplied to these words in the undertaking reproduced above. In the present writ petition, a writ in the nature of certiorari has been sought to quash the order (Annexure P-5) dated 10th February, 2009 passed by the appellate authority and the order (Annexure P-6) dated 13th July, 2009 pronounced by the revisional authority, whereby the findings of the appellate authority were affirmed. In view of these two orders, earlier order (Annexure P-4) dated 30th January, 2008 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana (West) was set aside. This is now time to recapitulate the brief facts of the case. Ram Lal was appointed as a Salesman for 89 days as a daily-wager, from 7th June, 1994 to 2nd September, 1994. At that time, respondent No.4 gave an undertaking that he will be responsible for any irregularity on the part of Ram Lal Salesman. On 2nd September, 1994, the appointment of Ram Lal came to an end vide a resolution (Annexure P-2). After a period of ten days, i.e. on 12th September, 1994, he was inducted as a regular employee of the petitioner-Society. Objections were raised regarding the appointment of Ram Lal in pursuance of the resolution (Annexure P-2) and directions were received from the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh that a security and indemnity bond be obtained from Ram Lal. Accordingly, the petitioner- 2 Civil Writ Petition No.15004 of 2009 Society took a cash security of Rs.5,000/- and an indemnity bond of Rs.50,000/- from Ram Lal. Later-on, according to Mr.Ashwani Prashar, Advocate appearing for respondent No.4, Ram Lal was promoted as a Secretary by the petitioner-Society and the order of his promotion constituted a fresh appointment to the new post. Respondent No.3- Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana (West) passed an order (Annexure P-4) that in view of the undertaking furnished by him, respondent No.4 was liable for the recovery of Rs.6,27,000/- embezzled by Ram Lal. It is the stand of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner- Society is not in a position to recover the amount from Ram Lal due to his indigent status. Respondent No.4 challenged the order (Annexure P-4) by filing an appeal. The appellate authority came to a conclusion that there was a cessation of the undertaking given by respondent No.4 after Ram Lal was regularly appointed and the Registrar, Cooperative Societies insisted for obtaining cash security and indemnity bond. Therefore, the earlier undertaking, if constituted a contract, came to an end because of the subsequent acts and conduct of the parties. The appellate authority formulated another legal issue that the undertaking given by respondent No.4 cannot be construed as a guarantee, as it was not in the requisite format prescribed. The revisional authority observed as under: “Thereafter the society had passed a resolution on 12.09.1994 for the appointment of Salesman on regular basis but the managing committee of the society has not taken any security at that time which is against the Service rules meant for the employees of the cooperative agricultural service societies. On account of embezzlement 3 Civil Writ Petition No.15004 of 2009 by the employee arbitration cases have been prepared against him and as per the orders in these cases the amount is to be recovered from the employee. Keeping in view the above said facts on the file that there is no solid ground with the society to attach the land of Sh.Ajit Singh- Respondent No.1.” This Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction, cannot hold that the view formulated by both the authorities below is the one which is not possible. The orders of both the authorities below are neither perverse nor perfunctory. It can be reasonably held that once 89 days appointment came to an end and ten days thereafter, a fresh regular appointment was given to Ram Lal, the earlier undertaking cannot be construed against Ajit Singh as it specifically stated that it shall operate qua “this appointment”. Furthermore, Ram Lal was also promoted. Thus, no interference is warranted in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 13, 2010 rps 4