R.P. SAINI Vs. PUNJAB STATE CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This plaintiff's appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and decree dated 20.2.1992 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, by which he has affirmed the view taken by the sub judge 1st Class, Jalandhar on 21.3.1989.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant had brought a suit against the respondent for challenging the order passed on 16.3.1986 by the Managing Director-respondent terminating his service as illegal, null and void. According to the plaintiff, who was working as an Accountant with the defendant-respondent, he had filed a report against one Mahavir Singh, Branch Manager of the defendant at Goraya Branch for making payment of Rs. 7115/- vide cheque No. 392176 dated 26.10.1981 as also payment of the balance as on 31.10.1981 for a sum of Rs. 1181.19. According to him, he was on leave with effect from 26.10.1981 till 31.10.1981 and had rejoined the duties on 2.11.1981, when he found that the aforesaid sum of Rs. 7115/- had been paid to Jit Ram, Ram Lok and Darshan Lal Ex-labour Contractors of wheat; that the aforesaid amount was not due; that the amount had been paid without the prior sanction from the District Manager, Jalandhar; that at the time of issuance of cheque the amount which was required to meet the payment was not lying in the Bank and the Branch Manager had deposited a sum of Rs. 4650/- in the Bank from the sale of the fertilizer in utter violation of the procedure; and that the cheque was also not entered in the cheque issue register and signatures of the Contractor too were not obtained. The plaintiff further claimed that while proceeding on leave, he had left a cheque book with the Manager, which got cheque Nos. 392176 to 392200 and had handed over an amount of Rs. 3554.65 in cash and, thereafter, a sum of Rs. 2080.10 from the sale of fertilizer, Rs. 671/- by sale of the cattle feed and a sum of Rs. 6305.75 was also there in cash, out of which Rs. 4650/- were deposited in the State Bank of Patiala at Goraya to facilitate the payment of Rs. 7115/- by way of cheque. On coming to know of these circumstances, he had brought the facts to the notice of the Manager and requested him to hand over the balance, which was lying with him, to which he flatly refused. Thereafter, Shri Jaswant Sharma, Internal Auditor made the observation on 23.11.1981, whereupon a charge sheet was served against the appellant as well as Mahavir Singh and Inquiry Officer submitted a report. Inquiry Officer mechanically conducted the inquiry, which is replete with illegalities irregularities and improprieties. After finalisation of the report, the plaintiff was served with a how cause notice, which was duly replied by him and without applying its mind the authorities removed him from service. This removal was sought to be challenged by way of a suit on the ground that the final order had been passed by the Managing Director and not by the Administrative Committee; that the same as based on no evidence; and that Mahavir Singh Branch Manager has been given lesser punishment.

(3.) After service of notice, the defendant respondent put in appearance and contested the suit on the ground of maintainability, the defendant being a co-operative society and is not an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It was also submitted that the order of dismissal was passed on 16.3.1986 and the plaintiff was required to serve the defendant a notice under Section 79 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The defendant also pleaded estoppel against the plaintiff. On merits, it was submitted that though the plaintiff had made a complaint that Mahavir Singh had forged his signatures and issued cheque in question but during the departmental inquiry, it was revealed and even admitted by the plaintiff that the cheque was duly signed by him and he had handed over the same to Mahavir Singh before proceeding on leave. The plaintiff had also admitted during the course of inquiry that he had issued blank cheques to ensure the payment of the fertilizer transportation charges and signing of the blank cheques by him was viewed as a serious lapse on his part and the plaintiff was found guilty and removed from service after a valid inquiry.