HARBHAJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner entered into service of respondent No. 3 in the year 1963 as its Secretary. His work and conduct remained satisfactory throughout. On August. 14, 1995, he was issued a charge-sheet with an allegation that he had committed misconduct by getting his son Bharpur Singh appointed as Salesman with respondent No. 3 on April 30, 1992, and that he had got passed the said resolution by concealment of material facts. The petitioner made a request that he be supplied copies of necessary documents to enable him to file reply. Without acceding to his request, regular enquiry was ordered and Avtar Singh, Inspector, Co-operative Societies, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer, who completed the enquiry without giving him any opportunity of hearing. Upon his report, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Malerkotla ordered that the petitioner be dismissed from service. On instructions given by the Officer, referred to above, Administrator of respondent No. 3 passed a resolution on Oct. 10, 1995 (Annexure P-1), vide which the petitioner was dismissed from service. Petitioner went in appeal, which was dismissed on March 1, 1996, by the Additional Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Punjab. Revision, filed by the petitioner before respondent No. 2, also met the same fate on July 9, 1997. His second revision was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Co-operation, Punjab, on Aug. 24, 1999. Hence this writ petition.

(2.) In this writ petition, it is primary grievance of the petitioner that he was dismissed from service without affording any opportunity of hearing and further that he was only an employee and his son was appointed as a Salesman, on the basis of a resolution passed by the Managing Committee of respondent No. 3 and as such his termination from service was bad. In the alternative, it has been stated that at the maximum, appointment of his son as a Salesman with respondent No. 3 was only an irregularity and not illegality, as has been alleged by the authorities below. It has also been stated that services of his son as a Salesman were also terminated, however, in a civil suit, the said order was set aside and he was reinstated in service. FIR, recorded against his son, also ended in his acquittal. By referring to above mentioned facts, counsel prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the orders under challenge be set aside and the petitioner be ordered to be reinstated in service.

(3.) Arguments, raised by counsel for the petitioner, have vehemently been opposed by counsel for the respondents. He argued that by getting his son appointed as a Salesman, contrary to the Rules, the petitioner has committed misconduct, for which he has rightly been removed from service. It has further been stated that opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and when he failed to defend himself, Enquiry Officer has rightly passed order against him. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the orders under challenge are perfectly justified, he prayed that the writ petition, having no substance, be dismissed.