C.W.P. No. 833 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 833 of 2008 Decided on : 27-04-2009 Sadharanpur Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd., Sadharanpur, Distt. Patiala ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and another. ....Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL. Present:- Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. I.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Gill, D.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. Dipinder Kaur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J (Oral). Sadharanpur Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 30.10.2007 (Annexure P-11) , passed by the Special Secretary, Cooperation (A), Punjab, whereby the revision petition filed by respondent No.2 under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, has been allowed, and the order dated 30.6.2005 passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Patiala was set aside. C.W.P. No. 833 of 2008 -2- Respondent No.2 was working as a Secretary in the petitioner-society since 1982. In the year 2003, he was placed under suspension due to registration of FIR No.41 , dated 24.6.2003 under Sections 409, 120-B IPC and Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) 88 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, registered against him. In the meanwhile, after the registration of the said FIR, a departmental inquiry was also initiated against respondent No.2. During the pendency of the said departmental inquiry, the respondent No.2 moved an application for his reinstatement to the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Samana. He has recommended for the reinstatement of the petitioner to the deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Patiala. The Deputy Registrar vide his memo dated 11.4.2005, ordered for the reinstatement of respondent No.2. Consequently, he was allowed to join the society as Secretary. The petitioner-society challenged the order of the Deputy Registrar before the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies, Patiala, who vide his order dated 30.6.2005 set aside the order of the Deputy Registrar and rejected the prayer of respondent No.2 for reinstatement. Against the said order, respondent No.2 filed a revision petition under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, before Special Secretary, Cooperation (A), Punjab, which has been allowed vide impugned order dated 30.10.2007 and the order of the Joint Registrar was quashed and the petitioner-society was directed to reinstate respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 was allowed to join the service with order that he would not be awarded the salary for the period he remained under suspension. C.W.P. No. 833 of 2008 -3- The said order has been challenged by the petitioner-society in this writ petitioner. Concededly when the Special Secretary, Cooperation (A), Punjab, has passed impugned order on 30.10.2007 prior to that the services of respondent No.2 were terminated vide order dated 8.2.2006 (Annexure P-7) in the aforesaid departmental inquiry, which was initiated against him. In spite of the termination order dated 8.2.2006 (Annexure P-7), respondent No.2 was taken back in service in terms of impugned order dated 30.10.2007. The counsel for respondent No.2 in the written statement has conceded the said factual position, which has been stated in detail in para 5 of the petition. The counsel for respondent No.2 states that since the services of respondent No.2 were terminated and the said order has not been challenged by respondent No.2 because in terms of the impugned order, respondent No.2 was permitted to join the service and till date he is serving. In view of these facts, the counsel for respondent No.2 has fairly submitted that let the impugned order dated 30.10.2007 (Annexure P-11) be set aside, but respondent No.2 be permitted to file an appeal against order dated 8.2.2006 (Annexure P-7). It has been conceded that against the said order, the remedy of appeal has been provided under the rule of the society and learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that respondent No.2 may be allowed to file an appeal against the said order within one month from today. In view of this conceded position, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 30.10.2007 (Annexure P-11), is set aside and C.W.P. No. 833 of 2008 -4- respondent No.2 is directed to file the said appeal within one month and if the same is filed within the said period, the Appellate Authority is directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law. 27th April, 2009. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) Monika JUDGE