CWP No.4228 of 2011.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.4228 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.03.2011 **** Kamal Kishore . . . . Petitioner VS. Financial Commissioner, Coop. Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioner **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner was appointed as a Field Assistant on 13.04.2005 initially on probation for a period of two years. His work and conduct was reported to be unsatisfactory by the Branch Manager and pursuant thereto, the respondent/Co-operative Bank resolved and terminated the petitioner’s services vide order dated 06.12.2005 (Annexure P6). (2). The petitioner impugned the said order before the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Gurdaspur after a period of three years inter alia on the plea that even after the alleged termination of his services, he had been performing his duties and was paid monthly salary also. His plea found favour with the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, CWP No.4228 of 2011.doc - 2 – Gurdaspur who vide his communication dated 05.03.2009 (Annexure P8) directed the Bank to reinstate the petitioner in service and send the compliance report. (3). The aggrieved Bank filed a petition under Section 3(4) of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) before the Registrar Cooperative Societies who accepted the same and set aside the order/communication dated 05.03.2009 (Annexure P8) of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies after holding as follows:- “Both the parties were given an opportunity to argue. During the discussion, the fact come to the notice that under Section 3(4) of the Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Act, 1961, Registrar, Cooperative Societies Punjab can cancel any orders passed by the officer beyond his jurisdiction. The orders of the dismissal were got received to the employee on 06.12.2005, the confirmation of which is clear from the signatures of the receipt book. On 02.05.2006 Sh. Kamal Kishore submitted the copy of the certificate issued by the Accountant of the Bank whereby it has been mentioned that the employee is working as Field Assistant in the Bank and presently he is drawing a pay of Rs.6404/-. The bank stated on 26.09.2009 that this certificate is bogus one as neither the dispatch no. CWP No.4228 of 2011.doc - 3 – nor any signature of the authorized officer of the Bank are on the certificate. This certificate has been prevented [sic] by the employee only to misguide the Hon’ble Court. This certificate was not presented before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gurdaspur during the enquiry which is clear that this certificate was prepared bogus after dated 05.03.2009. It has been clearly mentioned in the Section 7(2)(a) of the Punjab Urban Cooperative Bank Services Rules, 2001 that if the employee has been appointed under direct recruitment and during his probation period his services found to be unsatisfactory then his services can be terminated.” (4). The petitioner preferred a revision petition under Section 69 of the Act which has also been turned down by the Financial Commissioner (Cooperation) with the following observations:- “I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me. It is very clear from the facts on record that the Board of Directors of the Bank, vide their resolution dated 12.11.2005 decided to dismiss the petitioner from the service of the Bank, based on a report of the Branch Manager. It is clearly laid down in the rules, governing the service conditions of the CWP No.4228 of 2011.doc - 4 – petitioner that during the period of probation, his services could be terminated on the ground that his work and conduct was not satisfactory. The action, taken by the Bank against the petitioner is, therefore, in accordance with the rules. It is also clear from the record that the Bank has paid salary to the petitioner till 6.12.2005 and later on, the petitioner adopted certain dubious means to show that an amount of Rs.6000/- was being deposited by some private person in his account. In fact, it is very clear from the record that the petitioner had received the orders of dismissal on 06.12.2005 itself. It is very clear, therefore that the letter dated 05.03.2009 issued by the Deputy Registrar addressed to the Managing Director of the Bank, based on the enquiry held on the representation dated 08.10.2008 filed by the petitioner, is without any basis and does not constitute any valid order in the eyes of law. The order, dated 27.10.2009 passed by the Registrar is based on the correct appreciation of the facts on record and there is no justification to interfere with the same in the present revision petition.” (5). Still aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. It is vehemently urged that the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies returned a categoric finding regarding the performance of duties by the petitioner even after his so-called termination of services on 6th December, 2005 as also regarding payment of salary to him which is duly entered in his passbook also. CWP No.4228 of 2011.doc - 5 – (6). In my considered view the so called findings returned by the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies have been effectively annulled by the two superior authorities who on the correct appreciation of the material on record came to the conclusion that the order terminating the petitioner’s services was duly conveyed and its receipt was also acknowledged by him. The so-called salary drawn by the petitioner has been found to be the deposits made through some private arrangement. Similarly, the certificate dated 26.09.2009 alleged to have been issued by the Bank was found to be bogus bearing no dispatch No. or signature of any authorized officer. The petitioner has some fanciful ideas to establish his alleged continuance in service despite termination thereof on 06.12.2005 and the proof relied upon by him in this regard having been rejected by the two authorities, no case to interfere with the impugned action by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, is made out, moreso when the services of the petitioner were terminated during the period of probation when he had hardly worked for few months. (7). The petitioner’s contention that the order of termination casts stigma is also devoid of any merit as the Bank has merely communicated the fact that his work and conduct were found unsatisfactory by the immediate supervisory CWP No.4228 of 2011.doc - 6 – authority. It simply suggests that the action was not taken mechanically. Such an order does not debar the petitioner from future employment and the same cannot be termed as stigmatic in nature. (8). Dismissed. 09.03.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge