LAWS(P&H)-1992-1-223

TEHLIWALA JATTAN COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SERVICE SOCIETY, TAHLIWALA JATTAN Vs. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), JALANDHAR DIVN.

Decided On January 22, 1992
TEHLIWALA JATTAN COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SERVICE SOCIETY, TAHLIWALA JATTAN Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), JALANDHAR DIVN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 3, Balbir Singh, was employed with the petitioner-society, which is a co-operative society registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 . According to the petitioner, the services of the respondent were terminated by the Society on 9.10.1985 and before removing him from service, a notice dated 27th of August, 1985 was issued which was duly replied by him on 9.9.1985. However, the case of the respondent on the other hand is that in fact he had been removed from service of the Society on 10.8.1985 and it was thereafter that on 27th of August, 1985, a notice was issued to him that he should reply to certain allegations levelled against him in that notice within 15 days of the receipt of the same. It is further the case of the respondent that no other order was passed after he had sent the reply to the Society. Respondent No. 3 filed an appeal before the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Fazilka under the Model Bye laws of the Co-operative Agricultural Service Societies for setting aside order dated 10.8.1985 removing him from service of which intimation was sent vide notice dated 27th of August, 1985. An application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was also preferred before the said Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies.

(2.) The Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies after hearing both sides accepted the appeal of respondent No. 3 vide order dated 11.7.1986 (copy Annexure P-3). The penultimate para of the order reads as under :

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, went wrong in dismissing the petitioner as not maintainable as according to him there is no bar to entertainment of revision under Section 69 of the Act. According to him, even if an order becomes final under the Bye-laws a revision would still be maintainable under Section 69 of the Act.