C.W.P.No. 17605 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No. 17605 of 2008 Decided on : 26-02-2009 Surjit Singh Sekhon & another ....Petitioners VERSUS Financial Commissioner Cooperation and others ....Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA. Present:- Mr. Ashwanit Prashar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Sidhu, D.A.G., Punjab. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4. AJAI LAMBA, J(Oral) This civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 11.4.2007(Annexure P-14), order dated 11.3.2008(Annexure P-16) and order dated 28.7.2008(Annexure P-17). It transpires that the petitioner No.1 was the Chairman of the Mansa Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Mansa, while petitioner No.2 was the Managing Director of the said Bank. Certain allegations were made in regard to the appointment of 12 Security Guards in excess to the requirement. The allegation further goes to the effect that the Guards were appointed while allowing them a salary of Rs.5475/- per month, whereas 7 Guards already working for the Bank were drawing Rs.3,000/- per month. C.W.P.No. 17605 of 2008 -2- The pith and substance of the orders is that it has been found that while seven vacancies of Guards existed, 19 persons as Security Guards could not have been hired. The allegation further is that the Bank incurred Rs.2475/- per month per Gunman extra without due approval for extra payment. So as to consider the issue, reference may be made to relevant portion of Annexure P-16 i.e. order passed by the appellate authority under Section 68 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The extracted portion reads as under:- “While I appreciate the point of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Government agency PESCO was hired for providing Gunmen, which was needed for security duties and the approved PESCO rates were paid to them, it cannot be overlooked that the Chairman and Managing Director who are directly responsible for the conduct of the BOD and operations of the bank had been responsible for ignoring the fact that only 7 vacancies were available against which they hired 19 people. It also cannot be ignored that earlier also the bank had hired 16 people who were paid @ Rs.3000/- per month while now the bank incurred Rs.2475/- extra per month per Gunman without due approvals for the extra payment or for the employment of people beyond the vacant posts. It has been stated in the appeal that the SSP, Mansa has been writing to them to strengthen the security apparatus of the branches. However, the reference from the SSP cannot become a base for extending the powers available with the Chairman and Managing Director. If they felt the need for more Gunmen, they should have adopted the proper procedure for C.W.P.No. 17605 of 2008 -3- obtaining the sanction for employing the extra Gunmen. It has also been stated that they were not adequately heard nor was the inquiry report given to them. While it is a matter of fact that the inquiry report was not provided to them, it is inappropriate to say that they have not been heard since a show cause notice was issued to both the appellants to which they replied in detail. The reply was duly considered by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ferozepur before passing a speaking order exercising his powers under section 27 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 and ceasing them as Directors and Chairman and Managing Director and members of the BOD. I endorse his assessment that the extra posts should not have been filled without due sanction and the extra cost should have also been adequately considered and got approved before taking the decision to hire the people, even if the agency was PESCO.” Reference may also be made to Annexure P-20 i.e. a letter addressed by Mansa Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Head Office at Mansa dated 29.09.2008 to petitioner No.2, Managing Director, Punjab State Co- operative Bank Ltd., Chandigarh. The Managing Director succeeded the petitioners. The letter reads as under:- “Subject: Regarding calling of security guards from the PESCO. Sir, The Board of Directors vide resolution No.433 dated 10.9.2008 has passed a resolution for taking 22 security guards from PESCO. So therefore, you are requested to sent 22 security C.W.P.No. 17605 of 2008 -4- guards for the Bank from PESCO. Certified copy of the resolution is attached herewith.” Consideration of the extracted portion from Annexure P-16 and Annexure P-20 makes it evident that without doubt, S.S.P. Mansa had been writing to the Bank to strengthen the security apparatus of the branches. Consequently, a Government agency i.e. PESCO was approached for providing Gunmen needed for security duties. Accordingly against 7 vacancies, total 19 persons were hired i.e. 12 additional persons. The said 12 persons were paid salary at approved PESCO rates i.e. @ Rs.5475/- per month. A perusal of the extracted portion of Annexure P-20 makes it evident that the Successor Officer has passed a resolution for taking 22 Security Guards from PESCO i.e. even more than the number that had been recruited at the time when the petitioners were at the helm of the affairs. In regard to the decision making process, I find that it is the admitted case that inquiry report was not provided to the petitioners though show cause notice was issued. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have pointed out that the term of the petitioners has already lapsed. The present issue, therefore, is only academic. The petition under the circumstances has been rendered infructuous on account of efflux of time. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, however, has pointed out that under Rule 25 (a)(h) of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963, the respondents are likely to pass some order, so as to disqualify the petitioners for contesting election for the constitution of the new Managing committee. As per Rule 25(a)(h), a person shall not be eligible for contesting C.W.P.No. 17605 of 2008 -5- election as a member of the Committee, if he is in default of any Cooperative Society in respect of any sum due from him to the Cooperative Society or if he has incurred any qualification under bye laws of the society. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in case, recovery proceedings are initiated, it would be pleaded against the petitioners that they are disqualified. Considering the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and having considered the nature of allegations against the petitioners, I find that there is no finding of embezzlement against the petitioners. No material has been placed before this Court nor any issue has been raised by the learned counsel to indicate that the petitioners have misappropriated any amount. The guards were recruited under advice of S.S.P. for safety of the Bank. The recruitment itself is from an approved Government source. The salary has been paid at approved rates. Mala fide intentions of the petitioners are not reflected. Learned counsel for the Bank states that no recovery proceedings are being initiated against the petitioners. Considering the totality and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. However, it is made clear that Annexures P-14, P-16 and P-17 shall not be made the basis for disqualification of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank also agrees to this proposition. Disposed of accordingly. 26th February, 2009. (Ajai Lamba) Monika Judge