Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vinod Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 13 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036183
CWP No.5716 of 2024 (O&M)
1
2024:PHHC:036183
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.5716 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 13.03.2024
Vinod Kumar
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Vishneet Singh Kathpal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
NAMIT KUMAR J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in
the nature of certiorari, for quashing the Resolution dated 28.12.2015
(Annexure P-1) whereby he has been dismissed from service.
2. The brief facts, as have been pleaded in the present
petition, are that the petitioner was working as Salesman at Waryam
Khera, Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Limited at village
Waryam Khera, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka (hereinafter to be
referred to as 'the Society'). The charge of fertiliser, feed, agro
chemicals, etc. was in the custody of petitioner. On 10-8-2011, the stock
of Society was checked by the concerned Circle Inspector, and he found
shortage of stock of approximately Rs.2,40,762/-. Thereafter, the
petitioner submitted reply to the concerned Circle Inspector and he was
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036183
2024:PHHC:036183
granted time to deposit the money upto 25.08.2011. Thereafter, a letter
was also issued to the President of the Society by the concerned Circle
Inspector that if he failed to deposit the money upto 25-8-2011 then,
disciplinary action would be taken against him in accordance with
Service Rules 1997. Thereafter, the petitioner remained absent from the
Society from 20-08-2011 to 04-09-2011 and he came back to society on
05-09-2011 and the stock in-charge of the petitioner was handed over by
him to Sh. Rajesh Kumar Salesmen, and vide Resolution dated
13-09-2011, he was suspended by the Managing Committee of the
Society. Thereafter, vide resolution No.1 dated 13-09-2011, a sub-
committee was formed to take disciplinary action against the petitioner
and thereafter, a chargesheet was issued to him on 16-01-2012 and
15-05-2013. However, in the meantime, to recover the embezzled
amount from the petitioner, an arbitration case amounting to Rs.
2,26,655/- (principal) + Rs.10,991/- (interest) + Rs.250/- (cost) i.e. a
total amount of Rs.2,37,896/- was filed against the petitioner, which was
decided in favour of the Society, and the petitioner was directed to
deposit the said amount along with 10% interest. Thereafter, the sub-
committee of the Society vide its Resolution No.1 dated 23-12-2015,
recommended dismissal of the petitioner from services. Thereafter, on
the recommendation of the sub-committee, the Managing Committee of
the Society, vide its Resolution dated 28.12.2015, terminated the
services of the petitioner.
3. Being aggrieved against the said Resolution dated
28.12.2015 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner filed an appeal under the
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036183
2024:PHHC:036183
Service Regulation, 1997 before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative
Societies, Fazilka and the same was dismissed being time barred as the
appeal was to be filed within 60 days from the date of penalty, however,
the appeal dated 15.12.2022, was filed by the petitioner after a lapse of
about 07 years, however, the same was rejected on 05.06.2023. The
operative part of the said order, reads as under:-
"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Order:-
After considering the Appeal filed by Vinod
Kumar and statement given by the Secretary of the society,
it is found that Shri. Vinod Kumar son of Om Parkash
resident of village Waryam Khera was dismissed from
service vide resolution dated 28.12.2015. In this regard,
Shri. Vinod Kumar has sought time to file his reply. On
31.05.2023 Shri. Vinod Kumar has filed his reply in this
office.
This appeal is heard as per the Rule 15(i) of
the Punjab State Co-operative Agriculture Societies
Service Rule, 1997. The relevant rule is reproduced
hereunder:-
15. APPEAL
(i) And Employee shall have a right to
file an appeal against an order imposing any
of the penalties specified in Rule 14 before the
Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies
within 60 days.
According to this Shri Vinod Kumar son of
Shri Om Parkash has to file an appeal against the
resolution dated 28.12.2015 before this court within 60
days. Shri Vinod Kumar has filed this appeal with a delay
of approx. of 7 years. In this regard, the reply given by Shri
Vinod Kumar was not considered as appropriate. Due to
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036183
2024:PHHC:036183
this reason the appeal is dismissed in view of the Rule
15(ii) of the Punjab State Co-operative Agriculture
Societies Service Rule 1997. The file be consigned to
record room.
Date: 05.06.2023 Sd/-
Place: Fazilka Sonu Mahajan (P.C.S.-1)
Deputy Registrar
Co-operative Society, Fazilka."
4. Feeling aggrieved against the said orders dated 28.12.2015
(Annexure P-1) and 05.06.2023 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner preferred
a revision petition before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, which was also dismissed by the said
authority vide order dated 26.09.2023. The relevant part of the said
judgment, reads as follows:-
"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
a) Whether the present matter is time barred.
So far as the first issue is concerned, the record of
society and the lower court was perused very minutely. It is
evident from the record that the services of the petitioner
were terminated by the respondent No. 1 society vide its
resolution dated 28.12.2015, and an appeal against this
dismissal was filed in lower court on 15- 12-2022 after the
lapse of 83 months and 17 days, whereas according to Rule
15(i) of the Service Rules 1997, the appeal against the
penalty was to file preferential within 60 days. It is also
evident from the record that proper opportunities were
offered by the respondent No. 1 society to the petitioner
before the dismissal of his services; however, he intended
to keep himself away from society and remained absent
from society. It is inevitable to add here that when the
disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036183
2024:PHHC:036183
petitioner, it was his responsibility to present his part;
however, he did not appear before the managing
committee. It is also apparent to add that the Service Rules
1997 give no power to the learned lower court or to this
court to condone the delay in cases of appeals and revision
petitions filed under the Service Rules 1997. Therefore, the
issue is decided in favour of respondent No. 1 society.
Consequently, in view of the above detailed
discussion, the court is of the considered view that the
orders of the lower court are truly passed in the shadow of
the Service Rules of 1997 do not deserve interference from
this court. Therefore, the revision petition is not
maintainable and same is dismissed. Order which was kept
reserved on 19-9-2023 has been written on 26-9-23. The
order of lower court connected to this case is upheld
Record of lower court be sent back and file be consigned to
record room for record.
Date:-26-9-2023 Umesh PCS-1
Joint Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, Ferozepur,
Division Ferozepur."
5. Thus, aggrieved against the aforesaid orders dated
28.12.2015 (Annexure P-1), 05.06.2023 (Annexure P-3) and 26.09.2023
(Annexure P-4), the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing while passing the
Resolution dated 28.12.2015 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner
was dismissed from service.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused
the record.
8. From the perusal of the record, it is clear that the petitioner
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036183
2024:PHHC:036183
was placed under suspension on 13.09.2011 and thereafter, vide
Resolution dated 13.09.2011, a sub-committee was formed to take
disciplinary action against the petitioner and thereafter, charge-sheet
dated 16.01.2012, was issued against the petitioner, wherein it was
alleged that the charge of fertilizers, feed, agrochemicals, etc. was with
the petitioner. On 10.08.2011, the stock of the Society was checked by
the concerned Circle Inspector and he found a shortage of stock of
approximately Rs.2,40,762/-. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted reply
to the concerned Circle Inspector and he was granted time to deposit the
money upto 25.08.2011. Thereafter, a letter was issued to the President
of the Society by the concerned Circle Inspector that if the petitioner
fails to deposit the money upto 25.08.2011, then disciplinary action
would be taken against him in accordance with Service Rule, 1997 and
thereafter, the petitioner remained absent from the Society from
20.08.2011 to 04.09.2011 and came back to the Society on 05.09.2011
and the stock incharge of the petitioner was handed over by him to Sh.
Rajesh Kumar, Salesman. However in the meanwhile, in order to
recover the embezzled amount from the petitioner, an arbitration case
amounting to Rs.2,26,655/- (principal) + Rs.10,991/- (interest) +
Rs.250/- (cost) i.e. total amount of Rs.2,37,896/- was filed against the
petitioner, which was decided in favour of the Society, and the petitioner
was directed to deposit the said amount along with 10% interest.
Thereafter, the sub-committee of the Society vide its Resolution No.1
dated 23-12-2015, recommended dismissal of the petitioner from
services. Thereafter, on the recommendation of the sub-committee, the
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036183
2024:PHHC:036183
Managing Committee of the Society, vide its Resolution dated
28.12.2015, terminated the services of the petitioner.
9. The petitioner kept mum for a period of about 07 years. No
reasons have been given as to why the petitioner could not agitate his
claim during the said long period and thereafter, preferred an appeal
dated 15.12.2022, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide
order dated 05.06.2023, being barred by limitation and even the revision
petition filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Revisional Authority
vide order dated 26.09.2023 on the same ground whereas he was
required to file appeal in a stipulated period of 60 days in terms of
relevant Service Rules, 1997. Since there was a huge and inordinate
delay of about 07 years in filing the appeal before the Appellate
Authority, therefore, the same has rightly been rejected by the Appellate
Authority vide order dated 05.06.2023, which has been rightly upheld
by the Revisional Authority.
10. In this view of the matter, no interference is called for by
this Court in the writ jurisdiction.
11. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
JUDGE
13.03.2024
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
7 of 7
