IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9849 of 2010 Date of Decision : February 24, 2011. Suman Kumar .....Petitioner versus Financial Commissioner (Cooperation), Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.M.S.Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Monica Chhibbar Sharma, DAG, Punjab. Mr.Ashwani Prashar, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner was a Salesman employed by respondent-5 Cooperative Society. He was dismissed from service after holding that he had misappropriated Rs.400/- and Rs.600/- out of the sale of empty bags (ginni bags). The petitioner successfully challenged the dismissal order in the first round before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Hoshiarpur, which was further upheld by the Revisional Authority. The respondent-Society challenged those orders before this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.6571 of 2004 but no interim stay was granted to it. 2] During the pendency of said writ petition, the petitioner is said to have manipulated issuance of a letter dated 15.9.2004 (Annexure P1) C.W.P.No .9849 of 2010 2 sent by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Hoshiarpur to the effect that the Additional Registrar (Credit) had allegedly informed the author of the said letter that the writ petition of the Society had been dismissed by the High Court and as such, the Salesman be immediately made to join to avoid the contempt proceedings. The petitioner was accordingly again charge-sheeted on this count and after holding an enquiry, the Society terminated his services on 22.4.2005. The petitioner challenged the second termination order in appeal which was dismissed but on a revision petition preferred by him under Rule 15 of the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Services Society Rules, 1997, the Revisional Authority set-aside the order of termination as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority and ordered his reinstatement in service. The aggrieved Society filed 2nd revision petition before the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, which was though dismissed on merits on 26.3.2009 (Annexure P-7) but the petitioner was declined the back wages. The Society, thereafter, filed yet another revision petition before the State Government purportedly under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 which has been accepted by the Financial Commissioner (Cooperation), Punjab, vide the impugned order dated 23.11.2009 (Annexure P-8). 3] It may be noticed here that the only allegation against the petitioner in the second disciplinary action/proceedings is that he got the letter dated 15.9.2004 issued from the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society, Hoshiarpur wrongly stating that the writ petition of the Society C.W.P.No .9849 of 2010 3 had been dismissed by the High Court. The petitioner, it appears, brought on record another letter dated 29.9.2004 issued by the same authority, namely, The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society, Hoshiarpur classifying that the writ petition of the Society was not dismissed by the High Court and that it was the revision petition of the Society which had been dismissed by the Special Secretary, Corporation Department. The letter dated 29.9.2004 was issued in continuation of the earlier letter dated 15.9.2004. The Financial Commissioner in his impugned order dated 23.11.2009 has observed that “the Deputy Registrar has issued the letter dated 15th September, 2004 without verifying the fact and just based on the telephonic call” and his action is highly objectionable. The Financial Commissioner accordingly directed to proceed for major penalty against the Deputy Registrar, Hoshiarpur under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1970. 4] Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that the order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Cooperation), Punjab is totally out of proportion and unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. I say so for the reason that the Deputy Registrar had admittedly issued the letter dated 15.9.2004 on incorrect information as if the writ petition of the Society had been dismissed by the High Court. There is no finding that the letter was motivated or issued for extraneous considerations. The mistake, if any, was rectified at the earliest by issuing the subsequent letter dated 29.9.2004 (Annexure P-3) which was in continuation of the previous letter dated C.W.P.No .9849 of 2010 4 15.9.2004. The second letter dated 29.9.2004 was sent by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Hoshiarpur much before the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet dated 3.11.2004. It does appear that the Society had an axe to grind against the petitioner who had succeeded in the first round of litigation and was entitled for reinstatement in service alongwith consequential benefits besides continuity in service. It is pertinent to mention here that both the letters dated 15.9.2004 and 29.9.2004 authored by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Hoshiarpur are not forged or fabricated letters and their genuineness is beyond doubt. The first letter contained merely a wrong information which stood corrected/rectified vide the subsequent letter. It was not such a serious misconduct and that too attributable to the petitioner on the basis of which the Society could have terminated his services. The allegation that the petitioner was instrumental in the issuance of the letter dated 15.9.2004 even if assumed to be correct, the punishment awarded to him, i.e., termination of his services on that count is highly disproportionate to the nature of the charges. 5] For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 23.11.2009 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, is hereby quashed. Respondent No.5- Society is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all notional benefits, however, without paying him any back wages. The needful shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. C.W.P.No .9849 of 2010 5 6] The respondent-Society shall, however, be at liberty to impose minor punishment causing no financial loss to the petitioner. I say so for the reason that the petitioner has been deprived of the back wages. 7] Dasti. February 24, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE