C.W.P.No.18935 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.18935 of 2004 Date of Decision : 21.01.2008 The Kurukshetra Central Coop. Bank Ltd. .....Petitioner versus The State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present : Shri Subhash Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri O.P.Sharma, Addl. A.G. Haryana for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Shri Hari Om Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4. -.- 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? JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the Commissioner and Secretary, Cooperation Department, Government of Haryana, on 25.10.2001, Annexure P-8, whereby revision filed by respondent No.4 was accepted and the order of his dismissal was set aside. It was found by the Revisional Authority that the dismissal order has been passed without waiting for the enquiry report. A perusal of the record shows that on the basis of an equiry report dated 20.7.2001, the respondent No.4-Suraj Bhan was served with a show cause notice Annexure P-3 on 13.8.2001. In reply to the said show cause notice, respondent No.4 submitted his detailed reply. C.W.P.No.18935 of 2004 2 The Board of Directors, the competent authority, found that the matter requires to be further investigated. Shri Baldev Raj, A.M., Branch Manager of the Bank, Pehowa was asked vide letter dated 18.10.2001 to make further investigation. The Board of Directors considered the show cause notice on the basis of purported communication from Baldev Raj on phone that the members, from whom the further enquiry was required to be made, could not be contacted when tried time and again. On the basis of such communication, the Board of Directors passed a resolution of dismissing the services of respondent No.4, which order was affirmed in appeal as well. Once the Board of Directors have sought further investigation of the matter from Baldev Raj vide communication dated 18.10.2001, the Board could not proceed with the matter without having obtained a report from Baldev Raj, the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, the finding recorded that the Board has proceeded to go ahead with the decision without waiting for the enquiry report cannot be unjustified in any manner. In view of the said fact, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The same is dismissed. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to take further action on the basis of the report, if any, in pursuance of the communication dated 18.10.2001 and to take decision in respect of pay and allowances of the interregnum period in respect of services of respondent No.4 at the appropriate stage. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 21-01-2008 (MOHINDER PAL) *mohinder JUDGE