Civil Writ Petition No. 14548 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 14548 of 2009 Date of Decision: 6.10.2010 The Jandwala Co-operative Agriculture Service Society Limited …Petitioner Versus The Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ferozepur and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ambika Luthra, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. Harjot Singh Bedi, Advocate for respondent No.2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 9.3.2009 (Annexure P1), whereby the revision petition, filed by respondent No.2, an employee of the petitioner-the Jandwala Co-operative Agriculture Service Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Society”), has been accepted and his termination was set aside. Respondent no.2-Ajaib Singh was working as a Secretary with the petitioner-Society. During his tenure, various allegations of misbehaviour, negligence in performance of duties, absenteeism and misappropriation of funds were levelled against him. It is stated that in the year 2000, one Special Audit Report was submitted by the Audit Officer on 17.5.2000, wherein it was observed that respondent No.2 Civil Writ Petition No. 14548 of 2009 2 had embezzled the funds of the petitioner-Society to the tune of Rs.3,77,000/-. Since various allegations, at different times, had surfaced against respondent No.2, the enquiry was conducted, and vide report dated 24.10.2005 (Annexure P3), respondent No.2 was held guilty of five allegations. levelled against him. On basis of the enquiry report (Annexure P3), the resolution dated 21.12.2005 (Annexure P2) was passed by the petitioner-Society to the effect that the services of respondent No.2 were terminated. Aggrieved against the same, respondent No.2 had filed an appeal. It is not disputed that the appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ferozepur, vide his order dated 16.4.2008 on the ground that the same was time barred. Aggrieved against the same, respondent No.2 had filed the revision petition. The Revisional Authority, vide order dated 9.3.2009 (Annexure P1), had accepted the revision petition by setting aside the order dated 16.4.2008, passed in the appeal and the resolution dated 21.12.2005 (Annexure P2), whereby the services of respondent No.2 were terminated. Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner- Society, has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, in Sukhwant Singh, Clerk, the Amritsar Central Co- operative Bank Limited v. Deputy Registrar (Enforcement), Co- operative Societies, Punjab and Another (Letters Patent Appeal No. 1230of 2009, decided on 22.1.2010), to contend that the matters pertaining to the employer and the employee of the Society cannot be the subject matter of revision petition under Section 69 of the Punjab Civil Writ Petition No. 14548 of 2009 3 Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the order of termination of the services of respondent No.2 has not been adjudicated upon on merits. His appeal was dismissed being barred by limitation and his remedy of revision is taken away and he would become remediless. To blunt this argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has no objection in case the appeal, filed by respondent No.2, is decided on merits and the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. After considering the rival submissions, made by learned counsel for the parties, I find that learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly submitted that the order of termination ought to be adjudicated upon by any authority and merely on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation, respondent No.2 cannot be deprived of any remedy. Hence, the present writ petition is allowed and the order dated 9.3.2009 (Annexure P1), passed by the Revisional Authority, is set aside as he had no jurisdiction to exercise the same. However, the Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal, filed by the petitioner, on merits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and the objection that the same was barred by limitation may not be entertained. No order as to costs. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge October 6, 2010 “DK”