1. Petitioner has filed the instant petition claiming the following reliefs: -

b) for staying the operation and implementation of the impugned orders during the pendency of the writ petition and petitionerr be reinstated and be allowed to work.

2. The brief facts, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner joined the Abul Khurana Multipurpose Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Limited, Village Abul Khurana, Tehsil Malout, District Sri Sri Muktsar Sahib, on 28.04.1997 as Salesman and 1 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 14-11-2024 22:54:31 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146857 2 CWP-22473 22473 of 2024 thereafter he was promoted to the post of Secretary on 30.11.2004. The term of the elected managing committee of the said Society ended in the year 2017 and there was no managing committee of the Society since 26.06.2017 and accordingly interim four four-member sub-committee was constituted vide letter dated 19.11.2020 by the order of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, Malout, and the said committee was constituted to make the payment of salaries of the employees, payment to the fertilizer agencies and to prepare term loan of the Society etc. The right to append append signatures on the demand pronotes otes had been given to four-member four member committee. Thereafter, new managing committee was formed in the year 2022 and due to inimical behaviour of some of the members of the committee, petitioner was placed under suspension vide resolution dated 25.03.2022 (Annexure P-1) followed by issuance of charge-sheet charge sheet dated 27.0 27.06.2022 (Annexure P-2).

2). The petitioner filed detailed reply dated 11.07.2022 (Annexure P P-

3) to the charge-sheet.

charge . Thereafter, inquiry committee was constituted by the managing committee of the Society. The inquiry committee inquired the charges levelled in i the charge--sheet dated 27.06.2022 and submitted its report dated 13.02.2023 (Annexure P P-4) and the charges levelled in the charge-sheet charge sheet were proved against the petitioner. The said report was accepted by the managing committee and tentative decision for dismissal of the petitioner from service was taken. It was further ordered that before inflicting punishment, an opportunity of hearing be granted to the petitioner and the President of the managing committee was authorised to issue notice to the petitio petitioner to which the 2 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 14-11-2024 22:54:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146857 3 CWP-22473 22473 of 2024 petitioner submitted reply on 09.03.2023 (Annexure P P-6). Thereafter, the managing committee of the Society vide resolution dated 20.03.2023 (Annexure P-7) P 7) resolved to dismiss the petitioner from service. Against the said order of punishm punishment of dismissal, petitioner preferred an appeal (Annexure P-8) P 8) before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sri Muktsar Sahib, Sahib, and the said appeal has been rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure P-10) P against whichh petitioner preferred a revision petition (Annexure P-11) P 11) before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ferozepur,, which has also been rejected by the said authority vide order dated 05.03.2024 (Annexure P-12).

P 12). The petitioner again preferred another revision petition before the Special Secretary, Cooperative, Punjab, Chandigarh, dated 01.04.2024 which has been returned vide letter dated 21.05.2024. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned orders passed by the respondents are non non-speaking and have been passed in haste as the grounds and written arguments submitted by the petitioner have not been considered by the said authorities. He has further submitted that the petitioner was not respons responsible for the charges levelled against him in the charge-sheet.

charge . He also submitted that due to inimical behaviour of some of the members of the new managing committee, he has been suspended and dismissed later on.

4. Per contra,, learned State counsel counsel, in receipt of advance copy of the petition, has submitted that the impugned orders passed by 3 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 14-11-2024 22:54:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146857 4 CWP-22473 22473 of 2024 the authorities concerned are just, legal and sustainable in the eyes of law and, therefore, opposes the relief sought in the petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel ounsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Perusal of the order of dismissal dated 20.03.2023 (Annexure P-7), P 7), appellate authority dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure P-10) and of revisional revision authority dated 05.03.2024 (Annexure P P-12) shows that the same are well-reasoned reasoned speaking orders and the points raised by the petitioner have already been considered by the said authorities.

7. 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 he 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 prescri prescribed and whether rules of natural justice have been followed.

8. 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 he as under: -

5 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 14-11-2024 22:54:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146857 6 CWP-22473 22473 of 2024

(v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.

(vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;

(vii). go into the proportionality of punishment unishment unless it shocks its conscience.

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 :

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

10 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 14-11-2024 22:54:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146857 11 CWP-22473 22473 of 2024 These principles have been een succinctly summed 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:

9. To the similar effect fect 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: -

Shashikant S. Patil."

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: -

disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional Courts under Article 226 or Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority which has been earlier examined by this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V. Venuaopalan , 1994(6) SCC 302 and later in Government of T.N. and Another v. A. Rajapandian , 1995(1) SCC 216 and further examined by the three Judge Bench of this Court in B.C. Chaturvedi aturvedi v. Union of India and Others, 1995(6) SCC 749 wherein 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 471 471.

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 it 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 cannott be extended to the examination of 14 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 14-11-2024 22:54:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146857 15 CWP-22473 22473 of 2024 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)

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 isciplinary 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 evid evidence acting 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 ven 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 15 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 14-11-2024 22:54:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146857 16 CWP-22473 22473 of 2024 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 iss some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained."

10. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present writ petition, same is dismissed.