PARMOD SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was appointed as Salesman in the respondent -Society on 15.1.2002. He was served with a charge -sheet on 16.5.2008, to which he filed reply on 4.6.2008. The Inspector, Cooperative Societies was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Petitioner was called upon to attend the proceedings on 27.7.2008. Inquiry Officer completed the proceedings on 27.7.2008 itself. Petitioner was served with a notice vide Annexure P -11 after the submission of the inquiry report to the respondent -society. Petitioner filed detailed reply to the same vide Annexure P -5. Petitioner was also put under suspension. Petitioner's services were terminated on 19.9.2008. He filed detailed representation before respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 dismissed the same on 21.5.2011. The review petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on 13.3.2012. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan has vehemently argued that no proper inquiry, as visualized under the Himachal Pradesh Primary Agriculture, Cooperative Societies Employees (Terms of Employment and Working Conditions) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules' for brevity sake) has been held. He also contended that the petitioner has not been given an opportunity to defend himself during the disciplinary proceedings. He also contended that Inquiry Officer has completed the inquiry on 27.7.2008 itself. He further contended that the reply filed by the petitioner to Annexure P -11 has not been taken into consideration. He lastly contended that neither the termination order dated 19.9.2008 nor the appellate order dated 21.5.2011 is reasoned/speaking.

(2.) MR . J.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General and Mr. Surinder Saklani have argued that the inquiry has been conducted strictly in accordance with law.

(3.) IN the instant case, petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity to defend himself as visualized under rule 20. Once the petitioner had not admitted the charges, regular inquiry ought to have been conducted against the petitioner by permitting him to defend himself and to cross -examine the witnesses produced by the department and also to produce his own witnesses. In this case, petitioner has also apprised respondent No. 3 that he has not even been supplied with the documents. Respondent No. 3 has directed the Inquiry Officer on 11.8.2008 to supply the documents to the petitioner. Petitioner's reply to the notice after the submission of the inquiry report by the Inquiry Officer should have been taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority, i.e. society. What has been stated in order dated 19.9.2008 is that the reply furnished by the petitioner was not found satisfactory. How it was not found satisfactory has not been explained. Merely stating that the reply was not found satisfactory will not meet the requirement of law. The grounds taken in the reply were required to be discussed in the office order dated 19.9.2008. Order dated 19.9.2008 is laconic and non -speaking. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority should be speaking and reasoned.