IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.5016 of 2008 Date of decision: 5.8.2008 Arun Kant Batta -----Petitioner Vs. The Punjab State Cooperative Bank Limited and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. R.N.Raina, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.V.Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harit Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 & 5. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl.A.G.Punjab for respondent Nos. 3 and 6. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of charge sheet dated 23.8.2007, Annexure P.11 and order of suspension dated 10.8.2007, Annexure P.10. Civil Writ Petition No.5016 of 2008 2. Case of the petitioner is that he was working as DGM Systems in the Punjab State Cooperative Bank Limited. Charge sheet dated 23.8.2007 was served on him alleging negligence in performance of duty causing loss to the bank and malafide intention in implementation of Core Banking Solution and misusing of official powers. In the detail of charges, allegations include manipulations in the tender process for the purchase of computers, poor quality equipments supplied to the bank, suppliers not being provided with tender forms, tenders being awarded to kith of the officials. Before issuing the charge sheet, a preliminary enquiry was held by the Additional Registrar (Administration), who gave his report dated 20.7.2007. Details of the facts gathered in the preliminary enquiry are mentioned in the charge sheet. The petitioner gave a reply to the charge sheet denying the charges. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed vide letter Anenxure P.16, who gave notice to the petitioner asking him to participate in the enquiry. 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that after the charge sheet, the Managing Director of the Bank vide letter dated 13.12.2007 sent comments about the enquiry report wherein the petitioner was exonerated and in view of the said stand, there was no need for holding any further enquiry. It is also stated that the petitioner has 2 Civil Writ Petition No.5016 of 2008 not been given subsistence allowance and that outsider has been appointed as Enquiry Officer. Preliminary enquiry was illegally conducted by Additional Registrar. 4. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, only objection is to maintainability of the writ petition. No reply has been furnished on merits inspite of opportunity given. 5. Stand on behalf of respondent No.3, Registrar Cooperative Societies is that under section 50 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, the Registrar could hold an enquiry. Accordingly, enquiry was held and a report sent to the bank and it is for the bank to proceed or not to proceed in the matter. 6. Stand of respondent No.4 Registrar Cooperative Societies is that he was holding additional charge of Managing Director during which period he considered the preliminary enquiry report and directed issue of charge sheet. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. As far as objection to the maintainability of the petition is concerned, we do not find any merit therein. The Punjab State Cooperative Bank is a Society discharging public functions under various statutory provisions. It is not even the plea of the Bank that 3 Civil Writ Petition No.5016 of 2008 it is discharging public functions. It cannot be held that it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court even de hors the question whether it is ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution. Reference may be made to Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India , AIR 2005 SC 2677, paras 31 to 33. Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager, K.S.C.M. Ltd. v. Satrughan Nishad and S.S.Rana v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and another, (2006) 11 SCC 634 deal with the question of “other authority” under Article 12 of the Constitution in the context of Cooperative Sugar Mill or the Cooperative Bank referred to in the said judgments. We need not finally pronounce upon the said issue at this stage as we are of the view that the petitioner has alternative remedy. Writ petition to quash a charge sheet cannot be entertained unless the issuance of charge sheet is without jurisdiction or without any legal basis which question should also be normally raised before the departmental authorities. Reference may be made to judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. A.N.Saxena, AIR 1992 SC 1233, Union of India and others v. K.K.Dhawan, (1993) 2 SCC 56, Union of India and another v. Ashok Kachker, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 180, Dy.Inspector General of Police v. K.S.Swaminathan, (1996) 11 4 Civil Writ Petition No.5016 of 2008 SCC 498 and State of Punjab and others v. Ajit Singh, (1997) 11 SCC 368. 9. As regards objection of an outsider having been appointed as Enquiry Officer, it is well settled that there is no absolute bar to such a course being adopted unless prejudice is caused to the delinquent. Reference may be made to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd., M/s. v. Murari Lal Bikaneria, AIR 1971 SC 22, Paras 16 and 19. As regards preliminary enquiry being conducted by Additional Registrar and not by officer of the Bank, it is well known that object of preliminary enquiry is only to ascertain facts by the employer to decide whether or not to proceed with the charge against the employee. Reference may be made to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 1854, Para 12 and Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1997 SC 2148, Para 3. However, we need not express any final view at this stage on the points raised as we are relegating the petitioner to the remedy of contesting the matter at the level of the department in the first instance. 10. In view of above, without expressing any opinion on merits, we relegate the petitioner to the remedy of raising his 5 Civil Writ Petition No.5016 of 2008 objection before the Bank itself which has issued the charge sheet. If the Bank itself is satisfied that there is no case to proceed with the enquiry in view of its own stand in letter dated 13.12.2007, it will be at liberty to take appropriate decision in the matter. We also record statement of learned counsel for the Bank that if subsistence allowance has not been paid to the petitioner during the period of suspension, the same will be paid in accordance with the rules and regulations and if the enquiry is to be proceeded with, the same will be concluded expeditiously. 11. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge August 5, 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) ‘gs’ Judge 6