MANMEET SINGH Vs. REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the impugned order bearing endorsement No.EOI/EAI-6/2018/422 dtd. 28/11/2018 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.3 (Punishing Authority), order dtd. 27/3/2019 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.2 (Appellate Authority) and order dtd. 3/3/2020 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.1 (Revisional Authority). Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service with full wages and extend the accrued benefits.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Field Officer in MARKFED in the year 2011 and was lastly posted as Branch Officer at MARKFED Branch Office, Batala, District Gurdaspur. He was the supervisor for maintenance and preservation of wheat stocks stored in the NCDC Complex, along with another employee namely Jaswant Singh (Custodian). A physical verification conducted in June, 2018 showed a total wheat stock of 9575 MTs. In September 2018, a release order for 8400 MTs was received and dispatch commenced on 22/9/2018. On 28/9/2018, the Technical Officer, MARKFED, Gurdaspur suspected a shortage in the balance stock. A committee was constituted which reported a shortage of 21,973 bags (10,986.04 quintals) valued at approximately Rs.2,56,77,891.00. The petitioner and Jaswant Singh signed the physical verification report. The Managing Director, without holding a regular inquiry, dismissed the petitioner from service under Rule 12(ii) and (iii) and Rule 6(B) of the MARKFED Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1990. The appeal and revision filed by the petitioner were dismissed.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the impugned orders have been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, as no regular inquiry was conducted, no show cause notice was issued, and no opportunity of hearing was granted before passing the order of dismissal. He further contends that the police investigation report (Annexure P-10) has found the petitioner innocent of criminal conspiracy and that the co-accused Jaswant Singh has filed an affidavit taking full responsibility for the shortage. He argues that the punishing authority failed to record valid reasons for dispensing with the inquiry under Rule 12 of the MARKFED Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1990. He places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Tulsi Ram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416, and submits that the exception under Rule 12 must be strictly construed and reasons must be recorded. He, therefore, prays that the impugned orders be set aside and the petitioner be reinstated with full back wages and consequential benefits.