IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 581 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 25, 2011 The Karnal Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. …Appellant Versus The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Jagdeep Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the Karnal Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. against the judgment dated 1.12.2010, rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing its writ petition. The Bank-appellant had challenged the order dated 21.7.1989 passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana-respondent No. 1 being the Appellate Authority (P-6). According to the direction issued by the Registrar-cum-Appellate Authority, the appeal filed by respondent No. 2-Jai Bhagwan Sharma was accepted and he was held entitled to full pay and allowances for the period he remained out of service, which was to be treated as the period spent on duty for all intents and purposes. The Registrar-cum-Appellate Authority also granted liberty to the Bank-appellant to institute inquiry against respondent No. 2-delinquent employee on the charges for LPA No. 581 of 2011 (O&M) which disciplinary action was instituted against him. 2. It has come on record that an inquiry was held against the delinquent employee-respondent No. 2, which culminated in submission of inquiry report dated 29.12.1986. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges were proved. After the show cause notice and filing of reply the whole matter was placed before the Board of Directors in the meeting held on 6.8.1987. The Board of Directors gave personal hearing to the delinquent employee- respondent No. 2. It was decided that a sub-committee of the Managing Director of the Bank and the Deputy Registrar, Karnal be constituted to go into the case in detail and submit the report after making thorough inquiry. Accordingly, the Managing Director and the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Karnal, reviewed the whole case and submitted their report. They gave their findings that the allegations levelled against the delinquent employee-respondent No. 2 were true. The matter again went to the Board of Directors of the Bank. In the meeting held on 19.10.1988, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee-respondent No. 2, the Board decided to dismiss him from service. 3. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No. 2 challenged the order dated 19.10.1988 before the Registrar-cum-Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority found the inquiry report to be vague and that the delinquent employee-respondent No. 2 was falsely implicated. It has been specifically observed by the Appellate Authority that no fresh inquiry was conducted by associating the delinquent employee-respondent No. 2 nor any notice/opportunity has been given to him. Accordingly, order dated 19.10.1988 was held to be mala fide and without 2 LPA No. 581 of 2011 (O&M) jurisdiction. The Registrar-cum-Appellate Authority also concluded that the order passed by the Board of Directors on 6.8.1987 amounted to an order for holding a fresh inquiry because in the endorsement it was pointed out that a sub- committee consisting of the Managing Director of the Bank and the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Karnal, is constituted to go into the case in detail and submit the report after making thorough inquiry. The tenor of the order was found to be unambiguous and order of a fresh inquiry. However, no fresh inquiry was held. Accordingly, the delinquent employee- respondent No. 2 was held entitled to full pay and allowances for the period he remained out of service and the same was to be treated as the period spent on duty for all intents and purposes. The appellant was permitted to institute inquiry against respondent No. 2 on the charges for which disciplinary action was instituted against him (P-6). The order dated 21.7.1989, passed by the Registrar-cum-Appellate Authority was challenged by filing the writ petition from which the instant appeal has emerged. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition and upheld the order of the Registrar-cum-Appellate Authority (P-6). The contention that post-decisional hearing could be given in order to satisfy the procedural deficiency of pre-decisional hearing has been rejected by the learned Single Judge by holding as under:- " ......In the present case, prejudice is writ large. The first enquiry report was not accepted by the Board of Directors. A fresh enquiry was ordered which was held by the Managing Director and Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies; respondent No. 2 was not associated with that enquiry, therefore, the post- decisional proceedings were held at the back of respondent No. 2 and those post-decisional enquiry 3 LPA No. 581 of 2011 (O&M) proceedings have been made basis of punishment order. Hence, there is no infirmity in the well reasoned order passed by the appellate authority. The writ Court will not be able to come to the rescue of the petitioner." 4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant at a considerable length, we are of the view that the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Once the earlier inquiry report has been set aside by the Board of Directors by granting liberty for holding of fresh inquiry then two members sub-committee should have held an inquiry in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Regulations of the appellant-Bank. It is an admitted fact that no such inquiry was held and respondent No. 2 was dismissed from service on the basis of a report submitted by two-members' committee, which was prepared at the back of the delinquent employee. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has correctly opined that a detailed reasoned order has been passed by the Appellate Authority, which did not suffer from any legal lacunae. We do not find that any fresh inquiry could be permitted now to be held because charge sheet is dated 1.2.1986. The learned Single Judge has rightly refused holding of any such inquiry after a quarter of a century. The appeal does not merit admission and the same is hereby dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) 25.3.2011 JUDGE PKapoor 4