HARJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 30.04.2020 (Annexure P-14) passed by respondents No.4 Manager, HMT Employees Cooperative Consumer Society Ltd. ((hereinafter referred as 'Society') and respondent No.5- Inspector, Cooperative Societies, Pinjore acting on behalf of respondent No.3-Society whereby the services of the petitioners were terminated.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the petitioners were regular employees of respondent No.3- Society, which is a cooperative society registered as such under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act, 1961'). The petitioners were employed as Junior Salesmen at the petrol pump of respondent No.3-Society. On 1.07.2019, the management of HMT closed the petrol pump, which was being run by respondent No.3-Society due to huge losses incurred on account of fraud and embezzlement of the Society's funds to the tune of Rs.3 crores (approximately). Resultantly, case FIR bearing No.197 dated 06.06.2019 was also registered against the officials of respondent No.3-Society. Thereafter on 30.04.2020, the Board of Administrators, appointed by State of Haryana- respondent No.1, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 122 read with Section 33 of Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, handed over the petrol pump to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (for short ' HPCL') -respondent No.8 for a period of two years under a Holiday Scheme and on the same day i.e. 30.04.2020 (Annexure P-14), impugned order terminating the services of the petitioners was passed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has averred that the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioners was violative of the provisions of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 and of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred as "Rules") framed thereunder coupled with the fact that there had been non-compliance of the principal of natural justice as neither were they issued any prior notice nor afforded any opportunity of being heard. Learned counsel further averred that since the petitioners were employees of respondent No.3-Society, the sanction of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies respondent No.2 was not taken prior to the termination of their services, which was a mandatory requirement. In support of his averments, learned counsel placed reliance on U.P.State Coop. Land Development Bank Ltd. Vs. Chandra Bhan Dubey, 1999 1 SCC 741 and Board of Control for Cricket vs. Cricket Assn. of Bihar, 2016 8 SCC 535.