AMRITSAR CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD , AMRITSAR Vs. DEPUTY REGISTRAR (E) COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Amritsar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Amritsar has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 29.9.2008 (Annexure P-7), passed by the Deputy Registrar (E) Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh (respondent No. 1 herein), whereby the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the petitioner Bank against Sukhwant Singh (respondent No. 2 herein) have been quashed, on a revision filed by him under Section 69 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) In the present case, respondent No. 2 is working as Clerk in the petitioner Bank. On 1.8.2006, he was placed under suspension and the Supervisory Committee of the petitioner Bank initiated the disciplinary proceedings against respondent No. 2 for committing various embezzlements and fraud with the account holders. On 22.1.2008, respondent No. 2 was issued charge sheet by the Supervisory Committee of the petitioner Bank. Against the suspension order and the issuance of charge sheet, respondent No. 2 filed a revision petition under Section 69 of the Act before respondent No. 1, on the ground that he could not have been placed under suspension for a period exceeding six months without the prior approval of the Registrar. It was also pleaded that in the enquiry report dated 25.5.2008 conducted on the order of the Chief Minister, Punjab, respondent No. 2 was not found guilty, and only Branch Manager and the Cashier were held responsible. Therefore, initiation of the departmental enquiry against respondent No. 2 was illegal and arbitrary. It was also contended that the Supervisory Committee was having no jurisdiction to issue the charge sheet.

(3.) Before the revisional authority (respondent No. 1), the petitioner Bank took the preliminary objection that the revision petition filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 69 of the Act was not maintainable. Respondent No. 1, while rejecting the preliminary objection of the petitioner Bank, allowed the said revision petition and quashed the suspension order as well as the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Supervisory Committee and reinstated respondent No. 2 with all consequential benefits, while observing as under :