SAMPURAN SINGH Vs. SPECIAL SECRETARY CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside impugned order dated 03.03.2015 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.1, order dated 07.03.2012 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.2, whereby, the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as well as order dated 14.03.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.3.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as peon-cum-chowkidar with respondent No.4-Society and thereafter, he was promoted as Salesman in the society vide resolution dated 25.01.2006 (Annexure P-1). He was placed under suspension for remaining absent on 02.01.2008 but he was on leave from 31.12.2007 to 08.01.2008, which was duly sanctioned. He was not given any charge sheet and no inquiry proceedings were initiated against him. Even no show cause notice was issued after placing him under suspension. He was terminated from service vide resolution dated 16.08.2008. Said order was conveyed to the petitioner subsequently and earlier he was not aware about the passing of that order. The order of termination was challenged by way of filing appeal under the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Service Societies Service Rules, 1997 (for short 'the Service Rules, 1997) before Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ferozepur as the appeal was to be filed within a period of 60 days. The appeal was dismissed being time barred vide order dated 14.03.2011. Aggrieved by said order, the petitioner filed revision petition under Rule 15 (ii) of the Service Rules, 1997 before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ferozepur and the same was also dismissed on the same ground vide order dated 07.03.2012. Thereafter, again the petitioner filed revision petition under Sec. 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 before the Special Secretary, Cooperation and the same was dismissed on 03.03.2015 (Annexure P-7). Orders of termination from service, dismissal of appeal as well as dismissal of revision petition are under challenge in the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the work and conduct of the petitioner was satisfactory and no complaint was pending against him. Even he never remained absent and performed his duties honestly. The petitioner submitted an application for leave as he was having some urgent work and sought leave from 31.12.2007 to 08.01.2008, which was duly received by the Committee Members. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was placed under suspension because of said leave whereas it was not a case of absence from duty. During the period of suspension, no suspension allowance was paid to him and he was always termed as peon-cum-chowkidar. The petitioner was promoted as Salesman and was discharging his duties for the said post. Learned counsel also submits that without issuing any charge sheet and without conducting any inquiry or even without issuing any show cause notice, the services of the petitioner were terminated. The order of termination came to the notice of the petitioner subsequently and he filed appeal within the period of limitation but the same was dismissed on the ground of delay whereas it was filed within the period of limitation from the date of knowledge of the impugned order of termination, which was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Similarly, the revisional authority also upheld the same order and no reason whatsoever was mentioned. The appeal as well as the revision filed by the petitioner were dismissed on the ground of delay whereas it has not been mentioned as to when the same were filed and how many days delay was there. The impugned orders are totally non-speaking and have been passed without any application of mind. Learned counsel also submits that it has not come on record or has not been mentioned in the impugned orders that the order of termination was served upon the petitioner at the time of passing of the same whereas it came to the knowledge of the petitioner on 24.03.2009 as it was given by the Secretary of the Society and thereafter, the appeal was filed by him on 19.05.2009, which was well within the limitation period i.e., 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the termination order. At the end, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate authority as well as the revisional authorities have not taken into consideration the date of receipt of certified copy of the impugned order and filing of appeal as well as the revision.