HARDIAL SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA, ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order and judgment of ours will dispose of Civil Writ No. 2231 of 1970, filed by Hardial Singh, Manager, the Shahabad Farmers Co -operative Marketing -cum -Processing Society, Ltd., Shahabad Markanda, District Karnal (hereinafter called the Society) and Civil. Writ No. 2854 of 1970, filed by the Society through its President, Kanwarjit Singh Braich, as common questions of law and fact arise in both these petitions. The facts are being narrated from the petition of Hardial Singh

(2.) THE Society is a registered Society under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Petitioner joined the service of the Society as an Accountant on 23rd November, 1959. He was later on promoted to the post of Manager. A complaint was made by one Shivdev Singh of village Rattangarh, against the Petitioner and, in order to consider that complaint a meeting of the Managing Committee of the Society was held on 7th January, 1969. In that meeting, vide resolution No. 9 of the Board of Directors, the Petitioner was placed under suspension on charges of shortage of stocks and misappropriation of amount. A subcommittee was also constituted to serve the charge -sheet on the peti - tioner and enquire into the charges against him. It is stated that Board of Directors suspended the Petitioner under Rules 29 and 30 of the Service Rules for the Co -operative Marketing Societies (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), which are in the following terms: - -

(3.) IN the petition filed by the Society, the legality of the order of the Minister as well as that of the Joint Registrar (copies Annexures 'E' and 'B' respectively) has been challenged as the interest of the Society is to see that its order dismissing the Manager is upheld. From the facts stated above it is clear that so far as the order of the Minister is concerned, it is common case of both the Petitioners that the same is illegal, and is liable to be quashed; but so far as the order of the Joint Registrar is concerned, its legality has been challenged only by the Society.