1. This judgment shall dispose of CWP Nos.7967 and 7968 of 1998, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein for adjudication. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from CWP No.7967 of 1998, titled as "P.P. Singh vs The Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, Chandigarh and others".

1 of 28 ::: Downloaded on - 06-11-2024 14:48:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137687 CWP Nos.7967 and 7968 of 1998 (O&M) -2-

2. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated 26.04.1996 (Annexure P-15), whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service; order dated 19.03.1998 (Annexure P-20) passed by the Revisional Authority - respondent No.1 and the order dated 16.05.1998 (Annexure P-21), relieving the petitioner from duty.

3. The brief facts, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Chief Engineer in Punjab State Federation of Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Sugarfed') on 11.12.1987 and was posted in Tarn Taran Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited. Thereafter, he was promoted as Chief Engineer and was posted in Nakodar Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited on 03.06.1992. During the tenure of his service in Nakodar Mill, the petitioner was issued charge-sheet dated 13.02.1995 by Sugarfed and the statement of charges levelled against the petitioner is reproduced as under:-

NU 2215 ECP Brass Cage (SKF) from unauthorised source ignoring authorised dealer thereby causing financial loss of Rs.18,720/-.

4. He purchased Kirloskar make motor 75 HP at higher rates i.e. Rs.6621/- ignoring actual manufacturer i.e. M/s Kirloskar Electrical Company with malafide intention and personal gain without the approval of BOD of the mills.

5. Causing financial loss of Rs.38,800/- by purchasing spurious defective sulphur burner bottom and its malter from unauthorised source by verifying its quality which actually could not be put to use in the mills.

6. He issued purchase orders for purchases of spare parts at personal level without any financial powers exceeding his authority with malafide intention and for personal gain to the tune of Rs.1,31,803/-.

7. In connivance with other officers, unjustified purchases of 900 Air Heater Tubes were made without seeking approval of the Board though 110 Air Heater Tubes were lying in stock. In order to justify the purchase, 809 tubes were thrown in scrap to show consumption with malafide intention for personal gain and ulterior motive thereby causing financial loss of Rs.3,41,110/- to the mills.

8. Irregularity in the purchase of NSK Japan make Bearings from unauthorised source by tempering the record and manipulation quotations.

3 of 28 ::: Downloaded on - 06-11-2024 14:48:33 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137687 CWP Nos.7967 and 7968 of 1998 (O&M) -4-

9. Getting repaired Jyoti Make 3 speed motor on the basis of single quotation and without the approval of Board with malafide intention incurring an expenditure of Rs.54,000/-.

10. Getting sugar lifted at lesser rate i.e. Rs.20/- per bag by associating with an unauthorised committee thereby causing a financial loss of Rs.1,05,660/- to the mills.

11. Removing pages from Sugar Sale Proceeding Book to conceal sales effected at higher rate.

MANAGING DIRECTOR"

6. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, a copy of the cross revision petition dated 01.02.1998 filed by the petitioner before respondent No.1, has been placed on record as Annexure R-1, whereby the petitioner had sought modification of the order dated 18.09.1996 passed by Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Appellate Authority) respondent No.3 whereby after holding the petitioner(s) not guilty of the charges, liberty was given to Sugarfed to proceed again into the matter, after following proper procedure under the Rules. During the course of hearing, it has been stated by learned counsel for respondents No.4, 5, 6 and 7 - Sugarfed that although the said revision petition was filed by the petitioner(s), however, no orders have been passed on the said revision petition(s).

7. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that firstly, the revision petition filed by the respondent - Sugarfed under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, was not maintainable before the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to 7 of 28 ::: Downloaded on - 06-11-2024 14:48:33 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137687 CWP Nos.7967 and 7968 of 1998 (O&M) -8- Government of Punjab, Cooperation Department, Chandigarh as the same was not filed by a party to a reference as required under Sections 55 / 56 of the Act. In support of the said contention, he has placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in " Jasbir Singh and others vs Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division and others ", 2011(4) RCR (Civil) 1. He has further argued that the said revision petition was heard by an officer, who became a Judge in his own cause as the Revisional Authority, who has heard the revision petition was also the supervisory officer of Sugarfed at one point of time which has seriously prejudiced the case of the petitioner. He has further submitted that the enquiry officer has wrongly proved charge Nos.2 and 7 against the petitioner as the petitioner was not instrumental in the decision making with respect to purchase of ball bearings as the said purchase was approved by the Purchase Advisory Committee and the petitioner is not a member of the said Committee and the quotations were called on 08.07.1992 and the petitioner has no role in calling the quotations and before joining the petitioner in the Sugar Mill, decision had already been taken by the Managing Director for the purchase of 900 Air Heater Tubes. The Purchase Advisory Committee decided on 22.07.1992, to call the firms for negotiation and out of total four parties, only one party i.e. M/s. Shiv Raman Enterprises, Jalandhar was present.

After negotiations, the Purchase Advisory Committee decided to place order for 900 Air Heater Tubes @ Rs.415.40 paisa per tube and the petitioner not being a member of the Purchase Advisory Committee 8 of 28 ::: Downloaded on - 06-11-2024 14:48:33 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137687 CWP Nos.7967 and 7968 of 1998 (O&M) -9- cannot be held liable. He has further contended that the enquiry officer Sh. A.S. Pannu, the then Additional Managing Director, Sugarfed, was biased against the petitioner. He further submitted that no misconduct has been committed by the petitioner. He also submitted that Nakodar Sugar Mill and Sugarfed are separate legal entity and Managing Director of the Sugarfed has no control over it and not competent to issue charge-sheet to the petitioner.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 7, has submitted that the petitioner has not raised an issue regarding maintainability of the revision petition under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, before the said authority when the same was pending before the concerned authority and even in the writ petition also, there is no plea to this effect and the said plea has only been raised during the course of final hearing of the present petition. He has further submitted that the plea of the petitioner that the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation Department, Punjab, Chandigarh, was the supervisory officer and therefore, being interested person, could not have heard the revision petition is totally misconceived as no such objection was ever raised by the petitioner when the matter was heard by the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation Department, Punjab, Chandigarh. He has further submitted that the petitioner himself has even filed a cross revision petition dated 01.02.1998, before the said authority. He has further submitted that the petitioner has been dismissed from service on account of charges No.2 and 7, having been 9 of 28 ::: Downloaded on - 06-11-2024 14:48:33 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137687 CWP Nos.7967 and 7968 of 1998 (O&M) -10- proved in the enquiry proceedings and this Court would not go into the merits of the charges or the sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence led before the enquiry officer. He has also submitted that the petitioner being the technical head should have ensured that components are not purchased at inflated price. But he failed to perform his duty.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

10. Admittedly, the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner on issuance of charge-sheet dated 13.02.1995 and charge Nos.2 and 7 reads as under:-

"xx xx xx xx

2. Effecting purchases of ball bearings at higher rates without obtaining comparative rates in connivance with other officers/officials and suppliers thereby causing financial loss of Rs.1,12,634/-.

xx xx xx xx

7. In connivance with other officers, unjustified purchases of 900 Air Heater Tubes were made without seeking approval of the Board though 110 Air Heater tubes were lying in stock. In order to justify the purchase, 809 tubes were thrown in scrap to show consumption with malafile intention for personal gain and ulterior motive thereby causing financial loss of Rs.3,41,110/- to the mills."

After following the due procedure, the said charges (charges No.2 and 7) have been proved in the enquiry proceedings in the following manner:-

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137687 CWP Nos.7967 and 7968 of 1998 (O&M) -11- The Presenting Officer pointed towards annexure-II of the charge-sheet (CP/45) thereby highlighting the difference of rates of purchase of bearing and ball bearings in consumption with the previous purchases. He also produced the list of rates of ball-bearings purchased subsequently i.e. 1993-94 and 1994-95(CP/67) and the comparative chart of rates at CP/73-81 duly certified by the Storekeeper. Shri P.P. Singh in his defence stated that it was the duty of the Chief Accounts Officer to compare the rates and he also mentioned that the Patiala mill purchased bearing No.2215 at the rate of Rs.11,960/- and Rs.11,900/- from M/s/ H.M. Dayal and Co., Delhi and Ganesh Enterprises, Delhi, respectively (CP/171). The scrutiny of purchase order of bearing NU 2215 EM/C3 SKF made in Germany/Australia/Sweden, whereas no such strict specifications were given in this case as is revealed in the purchase order placed at CP/173. Therefore, this plea needs to be ignored.

The scrutiny of documents reveals that the purchase of N-315 (4 nos) at Rs.5210/- on 1.9.1992 from M/s. Mohindra and Co. as compared to the prevailing rates on 9.12.1991 at Rs.4250/- per piece, is 28% higher than the previous year rates. Though this decision was taken by the purchase Committee, it was the duty of the Chief Engineer to apprise the committee regarding the high rates. However, is it difficult to say at this stage as to whether the escalation of 28% in price in comparison to previous year, is justified or not.

The decision to purchase NU-2215 bearing (10 nos.) and not 8 numbers (as given at annexure-II of the charge- sheet at the rate of Rs.11856/- per piece (and not Rs.11,909.10P as wrongly given in the charge-sheet), was taken vide CP/73 (comparative chart) which was duly recommended by the Chief Engineer, Shri P.P. Singh along with the Chief Accounts Officer, Shri B.M.Sharma and duly approved by the Managing Director of the mills.

The comparison of rates of this item with previous years' rates as per annexure-II (CP/45) of the charge-sheet and subsequent year rates as per CP/67, shows that his purchase was made at very high rates. This item was purchased previously on 5.8.1991 and 30.8.1991 @ Rs.3052.87 and subsequent to this purchase (i.e. @ 11 of 28 ::: Downloaded on - 06-11-2024 14:48:33 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137687 CWP Nos.7967 and 7968 of 1998 (O&M) -12- Rs.11856/-), it was purchased at Rs.4500/- per piece in 1993-94. Therefore, this purchase of NU-2215 bearings (numbering 10) is extremely high in comparison to subsequent years' purchase also. Thus, extra price for the purchase of 10 nos. of Nu 2215 bearing @ Rs.11,856/-, when compared with purchases made in the subsequent year at Rs.4500/- per piece, shows that total extra price paid for purchase of 10 nos. NU-2215 bearing, was Rs.73,560-.

As regards purchase of 22224 CK (3 nos.) bearings, the comparison of purchase on 1.9.1992 has been done with purchase effected on 8.10.1988, which is four years old as annexure-II of the charge-sheet. Therefore, this comparison is not valid.

Thus, Shri P.P.Singh is responsible alongwith Shri B.M. Sharma, Chief Accounts Officer for recommending the purchase of NU-2215 ball bearings (10 nos.), which was approved by the Managing Director of the mill, thereby by effecting purchase at a higher rate to the tune of Rs.73,560/-."

As stated by Shri P.P. Singh at CP/195-197 and as per his joining report at CP-199, he joined at Nakodar mill on 3.6.1992 and the purchase of air-heater tubes was initiated on 5.3.1991 prior to his joining. It was during his tenure that fresh tenders were finalised CP/99. Though fresh tenders were obtained from three parties, out the rate of M/s Shivaraman Enterprises (who did not participate in this tender) which was previously sent during correspondence dated 26.8.1991 @ Rs.367.20 (CP/103) was taken into consideration in the comparative chart (CP/105) being the lowest thereby ignoring the other three parties. Then another letter was received from M/s. Shivaraman Enterprises dated 21.7.1992 (CP/107), in which rate was quoted at Rs.417.49 per tube, which was finally settled at Rs.415.40 P after negotiations by the purchase committee comprising of Chairman Avtar Singh, Director, Swaran Singh, Chief Chemist Gurjit Singh, Chief Accounts Officer B.M. Sharma and the then Managing Director Shri A.S. Sidhu, on the reverse side of CP/107, i.e. CP/108. The comparative chart shows that three parties 12 of 28 ::: Downloaded on - 06-11-2024 14:48:33 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137687 CWP Nos.7967 and 7968 of 1998 (O&M) -13- gave tenders between Rs.370.64 to Rs.384.68, but the order was placed with M/s. Shivaraman Enterprises at Rs.415.40 P. even when the party had not participated in the tender. By purchasing 900 Air Heater tubes, a loss of Rs.40,284/- was caused to the mill. Shri P.P. Singh, being the Chief Engineer of the mills who recommended this purchase, is responsible alongwith Shri Gurjit Singh, Chief Chemist; Shri V.B.M. Sharma, Chief Accounts Officer and the then Managing Director A.S. Sidhu (retired), alongwith the members of the BODs of the mills.

As stated by Shri P.P. Singh (CP/197) that unused air-heater tubes were kept between the two columns of boiler house squarely stacked and covered with polythene sheets out of which 600 tubes were loaned to the Patiala CSM. He also admitted in cross-examination (CP/285) that he asked the staff to get it issued from the store because as per the instructions of the then MD they were directly dumped that when they were first got to mills and the storekeeper insisting on issuing slips. These 809 air heater tubes were accounted for by the committee in its report dated 30.5.1994 (CP/117). Further, 1010 Air-heater tubes were got issued between 27.8.92 to 3.12.92 (CP/109-115), out of these, 809 were located by the Committee on 30.5.94 in the boiler house after such a long gap.

Thus, we find that 900 Air-heater tubes were unnecessarily purchased, without requirement and these were thrown in the Boiler House after getting them issued from the Store with malafide intention and a loss of Rs.40,284/- was incurred due to purchasing these tubes at a higher rate.

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX"

11. The contention raised by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and no misconduct has been committed by him as neither the petitioner recommended or initiated the purchase of SKF bearings nor the purchase of 900 Air Heater Tubes for which decision was taken by the Nakodar Sugar Mill before the petitioner had joined at Nakodar, and he is having no role in the said 13 of 28 ::: Downloaded on - 06-11-2024 14:48:33 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137687 CWP Nos.7967 and 7968 of 1998 (O&M) -14- purchases, was dealt with and rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.10.2013 as reproduced above.

12. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. S. Sree Rama Rao , AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1723 has held that the High Court is not a Court of appeal which examines the merits of the findings recorded in the departmental inquiry and the power of judicial review is confined to; whether the inquiry was held by a competent authority; according to the procedure prescribed and whether rules of natural justice have been followed.

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. P. Gunasekaran , 2015(1) SCT 5 while considering the scope of interference under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has held as under: -

14 of 28 ::: Downloaded on - 06-11-2024 14:48:33 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137687 CWP Nos.7967 and 7968 of 1998 (O&M) -15- c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;

d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;

f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;

i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:

15 of 28 ::: Downloaded on - 06-11-2024 14:48:33 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137687 CWP Nos.7967 and 7968 of 1998 (O&M) -16-

14. In one of the earliest decisions in State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. S. Sree Rama Rao , AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1723, many of the above principles have been discussed and it has been concluded thus :

16 of 28 ::: Downloaded on - 06-11-2024 14:48:33 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137687 CWP Nos.7967 and 7968 of 1998 (O&M) -17-

15. In State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. Chitra Venkata Rao , (1975)2 SCC 557, the principles have been further discussed at paragraph-21 to 24, which read as follows :

19 of 28 ::: Downloaded on - 06-11-2024 14:48:33 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137687 CWP Nos.7967 and 7968 of 1998 (O&M) -20- These principles have been succinctly summed-up by the living legend and centenarian Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer in State of Haryana and another v. Rattan Singh , (1977) 2 SCC 491. To quote the unparalled and inimitable expressions:

14. To the similar effect is the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Industrial Security Force and others v.

Abrar Ali, 2017(1) SCT 682 wherein it has been held as under: -

21 of 28 ::: Downloaded on - 06-11-2024 14:48:33 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137687 CWP Nos.7967 and 7968 of 1998 (O&M) -22-

15. The said view has recently been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava , 2021(1) SCT 285 and in the said judgment it has been held as under: -

24. It has been consistently followed in the later decision of this Court in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited v. Mahesh Dahiya , 2017(1) SCC 768 and recently by the three Judge Bench of this Court in Pravin Kumar v. Union of India and Others , 2020(9) SCC 471.

22 of 28 ::: Downloaded on - 06-11-2024 14:48:33 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137687 CWP Nos.7967 and 7968 of 1998 (O&M) -23-

25. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision- making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The Court/Tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority if based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.

26. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the Court is to examine and determine: (i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority; (ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with; (iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.

27. It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry.

28. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting 23 of 28 ::: Downloaded on - 06-11-2024 14:48:33 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137687 CWP Nos.7967 and 7968 of 1998 (O&M) -24- upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings.

29. The Constitutional Court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of malafides or perversity, i.e., where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained."

16. The plea raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the Nakodar Sugar Mill is a separate legal entity and Sugarfed is a separate legal entity and Managing Director of the Sugarfed has no control over it and not competent to issue charge-sheet to the petitioner cannot be countenanced with as the petitioner was common cadre employee under Punjab State Cooperative Sugar Mills Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1981, which were amended in November, 1995. Rule 5 of the Annexure 'B' provides that the authority competent to impose penalty upon the Chief Engineer is the Managing Director of Sugarfed, who has awarded punishment to the petitioner.

Therefore, proceedings have rightly been initiated by the Managing Director, Sugarfed. It is itself stated in para 6 of the petition that punishing authority of the petitioner is Managing Director, Sugarfed.

24 of 28 ::: Downloaded on - 06-11-2024 14:48:33 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137687 CWP Nos.7967 and 7968 of 1998 (O&M) -25-

17. The contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel regarding non-maintainability of the revision petition filed by the Sugarfed under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, on the ground that it was not filed by a party to the reference under Sections 55 and 56 of the Act is of no worth acceptance.

18. The Full Bench of this Court in Jasbir Singh 's case (supra), has held as follows:-

(iv) The remedy of revision either suo motu or otherwise cannot be invoked against an order passed by the Society. The said power can be exercised against the decision or order passed by the authority under the Act or a proceeding arising out of the Act or the Rules framed there-under.

(v) The suo motu power of revision cannot be exercised by the State Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, where a revision under Section 69 of the Punjab Act or under Section 115 of the Haryana Act itself is not maintainable either on the ground that against the impugned order an appeal has been provided under Section 68 of the Punjab Act or under Section 114 of the Haryana Act or on any other ground. In case the Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, exercise suo motu power of revision on the application of an aggrieved party or otherwise, it must be specifically so stated in the order itself."

The present case would fall under Clause (iii) above where it has been held that where the Registrar passes an order as an Appellate Authority under the Service Rules then the revision petition under Section 69 of the Act would be maintainable. In the present case, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies has passed an order dated 26.04.1996 in appeal filed under Section 4(a) of Annexure VI of the Punjab State Cooperative Sugar Mills Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1981 as amended in 1995, and not in exercise of powers under Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, the revision petition filed under Section 69 of the Act is maintainable. Further no objection was taken before the Revisional 26 of 28 ::: Downloaded on - 06-11-2024 14:48:33 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137687 CWP Nos.7967 and 7968 of 1998 (O&M) -27- authority regarding maintainability of revision petition when the same was pending before the said authority and no pleading to this effect has been made in the petition.

19. So far as the plea raised by the petitioner that the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation Department, Punjab, Chandigarh, was the supervisory officer of Sugarfed and managing the affairs of Sugarfed, and being an interested person, could not have heard the revision petition, it may be observed here that firstly no such objection was raised by the petitioner at that point of time when the matter was heard by him. Further the petitioner himself has filed the cross revision petition dated 01.02.1998. The petitioner having himself submitted before the jurisdiction of the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation Department, Punjab, Chandigarh, cannot now raise a plea that the said authority could not have heard the revision petition. Since no said objection has been raised by the petitioner before the said authority, therefore, there is no finding to that effect given by the said authority in the impugned revisional order dated 19.03.1998 (Annexure P-20) and the same is, accordingly, not acceptable.

20. So far as the issue raised by the petitioner with regard to the fact that enquiry officer was biased against the petitioner, it may be observed that the enquiry officer had exonerated the petitioner in relation to nine allegations and the petitioner was held guilty of only two charges i.e. charges No.2 and 7 after the same was found proved on the basis of evidence so adduced. Further the said plea has never been 27 of 28 ::: Downloaded on - 06-11-2024 14:48:33 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137687 CWP Nos.7967 and 7968 of 1998 (O&M) -28- taken by the petitioner in the reply to the show cause notice before the punishing authority or before the appellate authority or the revisional authority. Even in the cross revision petition filed by the petitioner, no such plea was ever raised by the petitioner. Further, the decision to impose punishment was taken by the competent authority i.e. Managing Director, Sugarfed.

21. In view of the foregoing discussions, I do not find any merit in the present petition(s) and the same are, accordingly, dismissed.