RANDHIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as Salesman with Barmalipur Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd., Barmalipur, Tehsil and District Ludhiana (for short 'the Society') having been dismissed from service on account of proved charges of embezzlement, is before this court.

(2.) Finding certain irregularities committed by the petitioner in the course of his employment and shortage of kerosene oil, empty gunny bags and bricks found at the time of inspection, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 22.10.2007. After enquiry, copy of the report was sent to the petitioner, however, he refused to acknowledge the same stating that his name has not been mentioned on the notice. Thereafter, a fresh notice was issued which also he refused to accept. Copy thereof was affixed on the outer door of the house of the petitioner. Finding that the petitioner had nothing to state, he was dismissed from service vide resolution dated 10.6.2008. The petitioner preferred appeal against the order of dismissal, which was accepted vide order dated 18.2.2009 and order of dismissal was set aside. The Society preferred revision before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, which was accepted vide order dated 31.3.2009 and the order passed in appeal was set aside and that of the dismissal of the petitioner was restored. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Secretary, Cooperation, Punjab, exercising the powers of Government under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), whereby the order passed by the revisional authority was set aside vide order dated 11.8.2009, being without jurisdiction as the provision under which the revision was maintainable had been deleted, however, liberty was given to the Society to file revision before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Thereafter, the revision filed by the Society before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, was accepted vide order dated 22.3.2012 upholding the order of termination of services of the petitioner. Aggrieved against the order passed against him, the petitioner is before this court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charges against the petitioner had not been duly proved. There was some small irregularity in the maintenance of record, which was corrected. He submitted that as per the allegation against the petitioner, there was shortage of about 200 litres of kerosene oil. Hundred litres of kerosene oil was, in fact, lying in the room of the Chowkidar which was in the same compound.