HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING & CONSUMERS FEDERATION LTD. Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has a long chequered history. Respondent No.1 in the year 1980 started his career as a driver with the petitioners. It was alleged that in the year 1991 respondent No.1 had misappropriated the funds of the Federation amounting to Rs.20,725/ - and remained absent from duty with effect from 09.03.1992 to 23.04.1992. Respondent No.1 was charge -sheeted for misbehaviour with the staff and for disobedience of the orders of the superiors. Major penalty of remuneration was imposed upon him vide order dated 13.07.1994. This order was assailed by filing appeal before respondent No.2 (Registrar Co -operative Societies). However, it was alleged that respondent No.1 did not pursue the appeal and the same was dismissed in default on 17.12.1994. Respondent No.1 thereafter filed an application for restoration of the appeal, but the same was also dismissed in default on 21.03.1995. Respondent No.1 filed CWP No.1844 of 1995 before this Court which came to be allowed on 30.03.1998 and respondent No.2 was directed to supply copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner and to proceed further from that stage in accordance with law.

(2.) The petitioner s filed review petition No.9 of 1998 which was allowed vide order dated 12.10.1998 and the order earlier passed by this Court on 30.03.1998 was held to be without jurisdiction and consequently the writ petition was ordered to be dismissed. The order in review was assailed by respondent No.1 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP. The Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded the case back to this Court for taking afresh decision, but when the writ petition came up for hearing, the same was withdrawn by respondent No.1 with liberty to pursue the remedy in accordance with law.

(3.) Respondent No.1 thereafter filed an appeal before the State Government which came to be accepted vide order dated 09.04.2012 and the case was remanded to respondent No.2 for deciding the same on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 vide order dated 13.03.2014 granted liberty to respondent No.1 to file an appeal before petitioner No.2, who was further directed to give an opportunity of being heard to respondent No.1. Petitioner No.2 was also directed to pass a speaking order and take into consideration the entire contentions of respondent No.1 raised in the appeal.