Cooperative Stores Ltd. vs Ved Parkash Bhambri
2006 Latest Caselaw 1043 Del

JUDGMENT

S. Muralidhar, J.

1. Admit. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30th November, 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP (C) 68/2000.

3. The facts in brief leading to the filing of the present appeal may be noticed. The respondent, an employee of the appellant, was issued a charge sheet on May 2, 1992 on certain allegations of misconduct. The resultant discplinary proceedings culminated in a report by the enquiry officer on March 4, 1995 finding the respondent guilty of the charges. It is not disputed that this enquiry report was never acted upon and the respondent was superannuated with effect from June 13, 1999.

4. Since the appellant failed to settle the retiral benefits of the respondent, he caused a legal notice to be issued on August 27, 1999 calling upon the appellant to settle his dues. It appears that only after the receipt of this legal notice, the appellant considered it appropriate to place the enquiry report before the disciplinary authority who by an order dated October 8, 1999 accepted the findings of the enquiry officer and imposed the penalty of removal from service upon the respondent. This led the respondent to file Writ Petition (Civil) 68/2000 before this Hon'ble Court questioning the disciplinary proceedings and seeking a direction to the appellant herein for payment of the retiral benefits.

5. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition, held that having permitted the respondent to retire from service on June 13, 1999, the appellant could not have thereafter persisted with the disciplinary proceedings. The learned Single Judge also held that there was no provision in the applicable pension rules permitting the withholding of the whole or part of the pension by way of a penalty consequent upon the disciplinary proceedings. The learned Single Judge accordingly quashed the order dated October 8, 1999 (wrongly mentioned in the impugned order as September 8, 1999). The learned Single Judge was also not inclined to accept the contention of the appellant herein that the present proceedings should await the outcome of certain proceedings pending before the Supreme Court of India concerning an order passed by the Registrar of Multi State Cooperative Societies, directing the winding up of the appellant, which admittedly, has become a financially unviable undertaking. Finally, the learned Single Judge directed that the respondent be paid, within eight weeks from the date of the impugned order, the entire arrears of salary from the date of his suspension from service till the date of superannuation after adjustment of amounts that may have been paid and received by the respondent.

6. Before us, the learned Counsel for the appellant, reiterated the submission that the present proceedings had to await the outcome of the liquidation proceedings in which the claim of the respondent would also be considered along with all other claimants. We do not find merit in this submission. In our view the present proceedings which concern the legality of the disciplinary action taken by the appellant against the respondent in the circumstances narrated above, can and ought to be decided independent of any proceedings involving the winding up of the appellant. The dues liable to be paid by the appellant to the respondent as a result of these proceedings will have to be paid in accordance with law.

7. The learned Counsel for the appellant is not able to point out any error in the impugned judgment dated 30th November, 2005 that warrants interference in the present appeal. We are not impressed also with the submission of the appellant in ground (J) of the memorandum of appeal to the following effect:-

The order of the learned single judge directing the payment of the arrears of the salary to the respondent within 08 weeks from the date of the judgment has placed the appellant in a very critical position as no funds are available with it for complying with the order of the learned single judge and the same will result into contempt of court in case the order/judgment of the learned single judge is not complied with.

The purported inability of the appellant to comply with a legally valid judicial order can hardly be a ground for interfering with that order.

8. No other ground was urged before us. Agreeing with the learned Single Judge, we too are of the view that the continuance of disciplinary proceedings against the respondent beyond the date of his superannuation was, in the circumstances, misconceived and untenable in law. Clearly, this was sought to be revived only because the respondent demanded his legitimate retiral benefits.

9. The learned Single Judge had directed payment of the amount due to the respondent by the appellant within eight weeks from the date of the impugned order. At the request of the learned Counsel for the appellant, we extend the time for making the payment till June 15, 2006.

10. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. All the pending applications also stand disposed of