PUNJAB STATE FEDERATION OF CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. Vs. ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR (D) COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES PUNJAB CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition and two other connected writ petitions* are being disposed of by a common order as common questions of law and fact arise in the three cases. The facts have been taken from CWP No. 6156 of 2009 for convenience. The facts lie in a narrow compass. Respondent No. 2-H.S. Sarangal and two others S.L. Kaushal and Jasbir Singh respondents in connected writ petitions were charge-sheeted for misconduct. Their service conditions with petitioner Sugarfed were governed by the provisions of Common Cadre Service Rules, 1981. Separate show cause notices were issued to them in 2004. Their replies not having been found satisfactory regular inquiry proceedings were initiated by issuing chargesheets. They faced regular enquiry while working at Morinda Cooperative Sugar Mills, Morinda. Sh. K.C. Maini (IAS) retired was the enquiry officer who conducted the enquiry. He submitted enquiry report dated 08.10.2003. The charges were proved. A proposed punishment of dismissal from service was issued to all of them as well as imposition of penalty of making good pecuniary loss caused to the employer from the three defaulters, charged officials, in equal proportion. The Managing Director, Sugarfed vide order dated 21.02.2005 did not find it a fit case for dismissal from service and instead ordered withholding of one increment with cumulative effect from all three. Besides, he also ordered that a recovery of Rs. 6,98,323/-be made to be shared equally by all three.

(2.) Aggrieved by the order imposing penalty, the 2nd respondent preferred a statutory appeal before the Board of Directors of Sugarfed in 2006. The three appeals were decided by a common order dated 06.12.2006 (P-2). The appeals were partially accepted by a Sub Committee constituted by the Board of Directors to hear the appeal from amongst the members of the Board of Directors. The Appellate Authority held the petitioners guilty of not following instructions but did not find them guilty of causing any willful loss to the Sugar Mill. In the result, the recovery order did not survive.

(3.) The Managing Director of Sugarfed dissatisfied with the decision of his own Board of Directors preferred a Revision Petition under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 before the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab. The revision was heard by the Additional Registrar (D) who by order dated 28.08.2008 dismissed the revision petition as not maintainable. He held that a revision petition under Section 69 does not lie against the decision of the BOD-Appellate Authority because the BOD-Appellate Authority is not an authority subordinate to the Registrar Cooperative Societies. The Managing Director was held to be subordinate to the Board of Directors and the bye-laws of the Cooperative Society did not authorize him to challenge the decisions of the BOD and, therefore, the Managing Director could not challenge the decision of his superior statutory authority.