LPA No.79/2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No.79/2008(O&M) Date of Decision: 10.4.2008. Punjab State Cooperative Handloom Federation Limited (WEAVCO) ............. Appellant through Mr. RK Sharma,Advocate. Versus Tilak Raj and another. ..............Respondents through Mr.Advocate. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? . ***** Vijender Jain,Chief Justice The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.12.2007 passed by the learned single Judge allowing CWP No. 13212 of 2005. Broadly, the facts are that Tilak Raj-respondent no.1 was serving as a Weaving Technician with the appellant-Society. For his acts of omission and commission, disciplinary action was initiated against him and punishment was imposed. The appeal filed by him was dismissed. During the pendency of the revision petition filed by him, the appellant-Society came out with a Voluntary Retirement Scheme for its employees which was LPA No.79/2008(O&M) 2 circulated vide letter dated 10.3.2003 (Annexure P-1). Respondent no.1 applied for voluntary retirement on 26.8.2004 (Annexure P-2) and his request was accepted, vide order dated 23.3.2005 (Annexure P-3) and he was ordered to be retired from service w.e.f. 31.3.2005. The appellant-Society, however, passed a subsequent order dated 31.3.2005 (Annexure P-4) modifying the earlier order dated 23.3.3005 (Annexure P-3) to the effect that respondent no.1 was permitted to voluntarily retire under the scheme subject to the decision of the pending inquiries against him. This was ostensibly done because of the pendency of the arbitration proceedings under Sections 55/56 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act,1961 for recovery of Rs.15,62,068.62 lacs. The said order dated 31.3.2005 (Annexure P-4) was challenged by respondent no.1 by filing CWP No. 13212 of 2005, which was allowed by the learned single Judge vide impugned order dated 19.12.2007. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-Society and perused the paper book. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-Society is that the learned single Judge has committed a manifest error in ignoring the fact that recovery proceedings against respondent no.1 were pending and therefore, the appellate authority was well within its right to modify the order dated 23.3.3005 (Annexure P-3). Said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-Society does not appeal to us and hence rejected. It is apparent from the record that under the aforesaid Voluntary Retirement Scheme, the disciplinary authority was duty bound to consider LPA No.79/2008(O&M) 3 all facts in case of an employee facing disciplinary action and seeking voluntary retirement and convey to the competent authority whether the request of the delinquent employee was to be accepted or not. Decline of such a request by the disciplinary authority was required to be communicated to the employee concerned in writing, who was further entitled to make an appeal as provided under the scheme. It is apparent from the record that respondent no.1 in his application seeking voluntary retirement under the said scheme had not concealed or mis-stated any facts. In his application (Annexure P-2) for voluntary retirement, respondent no.1 had specifically indicated against column no.14 that disciplinary proceedings were pending against him as also minor punishment had been awarded to him during service. It is further apparent that according to “Note” appended to the said scheme, reproduced in the impugned judgment (at page 20 of the paper book), the competent authority, after it had considered the opinion of the disciplinary authority, was free to take a decision to permit him to voluntarily retire or not. Admittedly, the appellant-Society had permitted respondent no.1 to voluntarily retire under the said scheme. Thereafter the action of the appellant-Society to modify the order dated 23.3.2005 (Annexure P-3) and make the voluntary retirement subject to decision of the pending inquiry on the ground that recovery proceedings of Rs.15,62,068.62 lacs in the arbitration proceedings under Sections 55/56 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act,1961 were pending, is not justified and beyond the scope of the scheme. However, the appellant-Society will always be entitled to LPA No.79/2008(O&M) 4 recover the amount from respondent no.1 in the event of any award passed in the arbitration proceedings. We find no legal infirmity in the order dated 19.12.2007, therefore, the present Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed in limine. (VIJENDER JAIN) CHIEF JUSTICE 10.4.2008 (JASWANT SINGH) joshi JUDGE