R.S.A. No. 3567 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3567 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.03.2009 Vijay Kumar Sharma ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) C.M. No. 10613-C of 2008 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of five days in filing the present appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, C.M. is allowed and the delay of five days in filing the appeal is condoned. R.S.A. No. 3567 of 2008 This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.3.2008, dismissing the suit for declaration to challenge the order dated 6.1.1993 passed by the Additional Registrar (Admn.), Co-operative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh, dismissing the revision of the plaintiff/appellant and upholding the resolution dated 29.4.1988 passed by the Administrator, Markfed. The appeal filed R.S.A. No. 3567 of 2008 (O&M) -2- against the order of dismissal was also dismissed, prior to filing of revision. The plaintiff claimed that orders impugned were illegal, void, unlawful, unconstitutional, arbitrary, capricious, null, wanton, discriminatory, mala fide, against the provisions of law, service rules, rules of natural justice, unjust, improper, in-operative and ineffective and, therefore, not binding on the plaintiff/appellant. The plaintiff claimed that he joined the Punjab State Co- operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. (Markfed) as Sub Inspector on 23.12.1975 at Chandigarh, the post was redesignated as Field Assistant. The plaintiff/appellant was governed by the rules called “Punjab State Supply and Marketing Co-operative Services (Common Cadre) Rules, 1967”. The plaintiff/appellant was charged with shortage of 227 quintals of wheat, which was said to have been mis-appropriated by plaintiff/appellant in connivance with Sh. K.S. Sokhi, Field Assistant. The plaintiff/appellant claimed that departmental proceedings held were contrary to the rules, as basic procedure was not followed. The suit was contested wherein allegations made by the plaintiff were denied and it was asserted that the departmental proceedings were held in accordance with law. Certain other objections qua the maintainability of the suit were also taken. The learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the departmental proceedings held against plaintiff/appellant were in consonance with the procedure prescribed. The revision filed by the plaintiff/appellant on the quasi- R.S.A. No. 3567 of 2008 (O&M) -3- judicial side was also dismissed, upholding the order of punishment. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that this appeal raises the following substantial questions of law: - “1. Whether the order passed by the Managing Director was nonest and void ab initio, as he was not appointing authority of the plaintiff/appellant?” 2. Whether the order passed by the administrative committee is to be treated to be without jurisdiction on account of expiry of the tenure? 3. Whether the inquiry in the present case has not been conducted in accordance with procedure prescribed?” The learned counsel for the appellant contends that Managing Director was not competent to pass an order of dismissal being not an appointing authority. However, this plea of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted, as the learned Courts below on the material placed on record were pleased to hold that the Managing Director was appointing and punishing authority in the case of plaintiff/appellant and, therefore, the order cannot be said to be no nest or void. The learned counsel for the appellant also contends that delegatee of administrative committee had no power to pass order as the tenure of the administrative committee had expired. This plea is also mis-conceived, as the administrative committee was constituted under the rules, therefore, it cannot be said that the tenure of committee had expired, as contended, otherwise also powers of appointing authority were with the Managing Director. The learned Courts below have also recorded a concurrent R.S.A. No. 3567 of 2008 (O&M) -4- finidng of fact that the inquiry in the present case was conducted in accordance with prescribed procedure. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed are answered against the appellant. No merit. Dismissed in limine. (Vinod K. Sharma) March 21, 2009 Judge R.S.