G S HUNDAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G.S. Mundal, Retired District Manager, MARKFED, presently residing at village Verka, District Amritsar, through present petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated March 27, 1995, Annexure P -4 passed by the Managing Director, MARKFED whereby his representation was rejected as also for quashing the arbitration reference insofar as it pertains to him initiated by the Managing Director, MARKFED and presented before the Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Punjab Chandigarh on March 7, 1996. As a consequential relief, the petitioner also seeks writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent -authorities to release his unpaid salary, retiral benefits such as gratuity, leave encashment, ex -gratia for the year 1993 -94 and any other benefit to which he may be entitled with interest calculating @ Rs. 18% per annum.

(2.) The facts, on which the relief indicated above are endeavoured to be made out as per the stand of the petitioner, reveal that he joined the MARKFED as an Assistant Secretary in January, 1973. He was, however, charge -sheeted on November 20, 1975 for the losses amounting to Rs. 6 lacs, caused to the MARKFED. He was allowed to cross efficiency bar w.e.f. January 1, 1977 as District Manager whereby raising his pay from Rs. 590 to Rs. 620/ - in the then pay scale of Rs. 350 -900/ -. On March 1, 1978, he was however, placed under suspension and vide orders dated September 20,1979 he was dismissed from service. The Assistant Registrar Co -operative Societies, Ludhiana, while acting on an Arbitrator, vide his award dated September 14, 1981 absolved him of the liability of the shortages amounting to Rs. 6 lacs. This order passed by the Assistant Registrar Co -op. Societies was set aside by the Appellate Authority (Additional Registrar, Co -op. Societies), Punjab and the case was remanded for raising a fresh dispute after impleading necessary parties. Being aggrieved of the order dated November 17, 1992 a revision was carried before the State Government by the petitioner through Deputy Secretary Appeals, who vide orders dated October 29, 1984 quashed the order dated November 17, 1982 as also arbitration award dated September 14, 1981. Sequel to the orders dated October 29, 1984, Annexure P -8 petitioner, was taken back in service subject to the approval to be accorded by the Board of Directors. This order was passed on July 1, 1986. Petitioner thus submitted his joining report on July 2, 1986. It is on July 23, 1986 that the board of Directors passed a resolution with regard to taking back the petitioner in service of the MARKFED. It is the case of the petitioner that he was allowed revised pay scale of Rs. 825 -1580/ - thereby fixing his pay at Rs. 1200/ - w.e.f. January 1, 1970. Petitioner was, however, once again dismissed from service on July 20, 1987. Revision petition filed by the petitioner under Sec. 69 of the Punjab Co -operative Societies Act, 1961, against the orders aforesaid, was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, vide order dated August 16, 1989, Annexure P -16. On November 7, 1989, the petitioner was, however, granted Annual grade increment w.e.f. October 1, 1989. Even though the revision was accepted but the case was remanded to the Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Punjab, who, after getting a fresh reference of dispute against all those who were responsible for harvesting without observing the instructions and causing loss in respect of item No. 1, was to appoint an arbitrator who was to summon the parties and then pressed to decide the dispute. On August 3, 1992, one Shri S.P. Singh, Chief Manager, MARKFED was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. The case of the petitioner is that vide orders dated January 4, 1993, Annexure P -11, he was informed that he was taken back in service of the MARKFED in compliance with the orders of the Punjab Government and that while issuing orders dated April 26, 1988, it was made clear that he would not be entitled to any emoluments or arrears of pay excepting subsistence allowance. The petitioner addressed a letter dated June 14, 1993, to the respondent -MARKFED so as to know as to what was the punishment under the MARKFED Common Cadre Rules 1990, inflicted upon him thereby debarring him from claiming salary for the suspension/dismissal period to which no reply has been received. Meanwhile, the petitioner super annulated on April 30, 1994. It is thereafter also that he made representation and sent reminders and even sent notice on various dates but it is on a March 27, 1995, that his representation was rejected vide order Annexure P -4.

(3.) The basic contention raised by Mr. Mattewal, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that once the petitioner had been exonerated of the charges levelled against him and that his revision petition was accepted by the Government, there were no valid reasons for the respondents to with -hold his pay during the period he remained under suspension as also to disallow him other benefits for the said period as also that there could not be only any resort to fresh arbitration proceedings after a lapse of 21 years.