CWP No.16626 of 2008.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.16626 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.04.2011 **** Harpal Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. Financial Commissioner Co-op, Punjab & Anr. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. RS Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab Mr. TPS Tung, Advocate for respondent No.7 **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner joined respondent No.7-Cooperative Society as its Secretary in the year 1991. He was placed under suspension on 09.09.1995 and later on his services were terminated vide resolution dated 12.12.1996. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of termination before the Deputy Registrar Cooperative- Societies who vide his order dated 08.05.2001 ordered the petitioner’s reinstatement after holding that the prescribed procedure was not followed before terminating his services. The Society vide its resolution dated 23.07.2001 re-instated the petitioner but again placed him under suspension vide CWP No.16626 of 2008.doc - 2 – resolution dated 20.09.2003. A perusal of the self-speaking order passed by the Financial Commissioner, Co-operation Department, Punjab reveals that despite the petitioner being under suspension in terms of the above-mentioned resolution, the Society allowed him to participate in its activities as a ‘Salesman’. It is further revealed that the petitioner was subsequently ordered to be “reverted” from the post of Secretary to that of Salesman and allowed to join that lower post vide resolution dated 10.11.2003. The petitioner, however, did not join the lower post of Salesman. He was therefore treated to be absent from duty and a charge-sheet was served upon him and without following any due procedure, the Society vide resolution dated 03.03.2005 again dismissed him from service. To add to the confusion, the Deputy Registrar and the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab have also been passing contradictory orders while deciding the appeal and the revision petition(s) preferred by the petitioner or the Society. (2). The Financial Commissioner, Punjab vide her order dated 30.01.2008 (Annexure P7) and with a view to iron out the creases invoked her suo motu powers and has set aside the order of reversion of the petitioner and rightly so for the reason that he was never appointed as a Salesman nor CWP No.16626 of 2008.doc - 3 – promoted as a Secretary (rather was directly recruited as Secretary) and as such he could not be reverted as Salesman. Similarly, the subsequent dismissal order passed against the petitioner has been rightly set aside as no enquiry was held nor the principles of natural justice were followed. After these orders have been set aside the original status of the petitioner as a Secretary of the society stood restored but only being under suspension, against whom a charge-sheet is also pending. (3). The petitioner’s grievance is that he ought not have been kept under suspension by the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab. (4). Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any substance in the above-mentioned contention. There have been certain allegations and it is apparent from the record that a charge-sheet in relation thereto has been issued though no enquiry was held. Since the petitioner’s re-instatement has been ordered on a technical ground of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice, it is well-settled that the status quo ante, namely, his position as an employee under suspension was to be restored. The Financial Commissioner has precisely done the same thing. (5). For the reason afore-stated, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Financial CWP No.16626 of 2008.doc - 4 – Commissioner. However, respondent No.7-Society is directed to hold and conclude the enquiry pending against the petitioner, as early as possible but not later than six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to fully cooperate with the enquiry proceedings. The future consequences shall depend upon the outcome of the enquiry proceedings. (6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 06.04.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge