STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. JATINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the State of Punjab and another against the judgment and decree, dated November 25, 1991 of the Additional Senior Subordinate Judge, Sunam, which were affirmed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur, vide his judgment and decree, dated September 25, 1992.

(2.) Brief facts of the case may be recapitulated. Jatinder Singh was appointed as Sub-Inspector, Cooperative Societies in the year 1970. He was promoted as Inspector in the year 1981. In the year 1984, Jatinder Singh was posted as Inspector, Primary Land Mortgage Bank, Sangrur and was given additional charge of Administrator of Bir Kalan Cooperative Agricultural Service Society, Bir Kalan, vide order dated August 10, 1984 and he worked as such from August 14, 1984 to October 20, 1984. Village Bir Kalan is situated at a distance of about 15 K.Ms. from Sangrur. During this period, he was entrusted with the duty of compiling annual statements of Consumer Store, Sangrur and certain other bodies vide order, dated November 15, 1984 and that work was of much importance. As such, he attended that work in compliance with the said order of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies and on that count, he could not visit Bir Kalan from November 16, 1984 to December 6, 1984 and remained at Sangrur and Chandigarh during the aforesaid period. It was further pleaded that he worked only as Inspector, Cooperative Societies with effect from December 21, 1984 as per order No. 6940-44, dated December 21, 1984 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies. He received an order dated January 2, 1985 vide which he was placed under suspension by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Case of Jatinder Singh is that Deputy Registrar was not his appointing and punishing Authority and, as such, could not place him under suspension. On July 3, 1985 a show cause notice dated June 21, 1985 was served on Jatinder Singh by the Registrar through Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, containing six charges as enumerated in para 13 of the plaint. The show cause notice was replied by him and each and every charge was explained as stated in Paras 14 to 26 of the plaint. Sampuran Singh, Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer vide order, dated September 23, 1985, Exhibit D4. According to Jatinder Singh, Enquiry Officer was appointed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, without application of mind to the reply submitted by him. Sampuran Singh conducted the enquiry but before concluding it, he was transferred from Ludhiana to Chandigarh and in his place Deputy Registrar, Ludhiana, was directed to continue the enquiry and on the basis of the enquiry report which was signed and submitted later on, services of Jatinder Singh were terminated vide order, dated March 27, 1987, Exhibit D6.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, Jatinder Singh filed an appeal but the same was dismissed vide Exhibit D7. According to Jatinder Singh, there was no evidence against him but the Enquiry Officer gave a report without considering the evidence on record. Sampuran Singh, Enquiry Officer had been transferred from Ludhiana when the enquiry was not completed. Then his successor was appointed as Enquiry Officer who, however, did not submit any report and report, in fact, was submitted by Sampuran Singh who had earlier conducted the enquiry. That enquiry report was signed by Sampuran Singh as former Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana. Thereafter, order vide which the successor of Sampuran Singh was appointed as Enquiry Officer, was withdrawn. According to Jatinder Singh, the report submitted by Sampuran Singh was without jurisdiction.