Anil Salaria vs Punjab State Cooperative Milk ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 16196 P&H

CWP-27255-2015                                                       -1-

215
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH

                                                              CWP-27255-2015
                                                    Date of decision: 08.12.2022

ANIL SALARI
                                                                    ...Petitioner

                                   VERSUS


PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION
LTD., CHANDIGARH
                                         ...Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:-   Mr. R. K. Arora, Advocate and
            Ms. Saguna Arora, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. B. S. Patwalia, Advocate
            for the respondent.

                  ****

JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (Oral)

This is a petition that has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the

Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for

quashing order dated 24.11.2015 (Annexure P-5), whereby the petitioner herein

has been reverted from the post of Manager (Production) to the post of Deputy

Manager (Production).

Learned counsel for the petitioner herein would contend that the

petitioner had joined service in the respondent-MILKFED as Dairy Assistant in

September, 1983 and was subsequently promoted on various posts. On

24.11.2015, while working as Manager (Production), he was served with

impugned order, whereby he was reverted to the post of Deputy Manager

1 of 3

(Production) with immediate effect on account of an FIR registered against him

by the Vigilance Department on account of taking bribe of Rs.5,000/- from

Labour Contractor. He would submit that the impugned order is punitive in

nature and issued without any show cause notice and giving the petitioner

opportunity to defend himself. Even the proceedings under the FIR culminated

in favour of the petitioner and he was acquitted by the trial Court giving him

benefit of doubt.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that during

the pendency of this writ petition, counsel for the respondent was directed to

complete instructions and file an affidavit with regard to the effect of judgment

of acquittal dated 31.10.2017 (Annexure P-7) considering that no

deparatmental proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner on account

of the FIR having been registered against him. It is argued that the said

affidavit dated 05.09.2022 has been filed and on the basis of said affidavit, the

writ petition deserved to be allowed.

Learned counsel for the respondent-MILKFED would rely on the

affidavit dated 05.09.2022 filed by the Managing Director, MILKFED, wherein

in para No.7, it is stated that a decision has been taken to withdraw the

impugned order dated 24.11.2015 by taking into account the facts that the

petitioner has been acquitted of all the charges framed against him by the

Vigilance Department and the Government itself has decided that the case is

not appealable.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused

the pleadings of the case, especially the affidavit that has been filed by the

respondent-MILKFED dated 05.09.2022.

2 of 3

The petitioner herein had impugned the order dated 24.11.2015

(Annexure P-5), whereby he had been reverted only on account of proceedings

initiated by the Vigilance Department, which proceedings have culminated in

an acquittal. The State itself has decided not to file an appeal against order of

acquittal and the Managing Director in its reply has stated that a decision has

been taken to withdraw the said impugned order.

Consequently, taking into account the aforesaid affidavit, as filed

by the respondent-MILKFED, the instant writ petition is disposed of and the

impugned order dated 24.11.2015 (Annexure P-5), is hereby set aside. The

petitioner, who has since retired would be entitled to all consequential benefits

that would ensue. Let the entire exercise be completed, within a period of four

months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

                                                 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
08.12.2022                                             JUDGE
Chetan Thakur



                Whether speaking/reasoned        :     Yes/No

                Whether reportable               :     Yes/No




                                        3 of 3