IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16853 of 2010 Date of decision:
13. h May, 2013 Shashi Kant Petitioner Versus Registrar, Cooperative Societies, UT Chandigarh and others Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Balwinder S.
Sehra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr.K.K.Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
(ORAL) Services of the petitioner, who was working as Junior Clerk with the Chandigarh State Cooperative Bank Limited, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Bank’).were terminated by the Administrator of the Bank vide order dated 26.02.2007 (Annexure P-4).The petitioner filed Statutory Appeal before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies-cum-Appellate Authority, Union Territory, Chandigarh, which was dismissed vide order dated 16.06.2009 (Annexure P-5).Aggrieved from the same, the petitioner filed revision petition under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (as applicable to U.T.Chandigarh) (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’).However, the same was also dismissed vide order dated 28.04.2010 Civil Writ Petition No.16853 o”
2. (Annexure P-6) holding the same not maintainable.
Relevant part of the said order reads thus: “4.
After hearing the parties and going through the record, I find that the Administrator, Chandigarh State Cooperative Bank Limited dismissed the petitioner from service while exercising the powers of Disciplinary Authority under Punjab State Cooperative Financing Institution Services Rules, 1958 read with Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 as applicable to the employees of Chandigarh State Cooperative Bank Limited.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority rejected the same.
As per Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1970 Bye-Laws 37 (iv) “To appoint, dismiss, suspend or punish salaried or unsalaried employees of the Bank provided that any employee aggrieved by an order of the Board of Directors dismissing, suspending or otherwise punishing him may appeal therefrom to the Registrar (who may delegate this power of deciding such appeal to the Additional/Joint Registrar) and the decision of the appellate authority shall be final and binding on parties.”
The petitioner has filed present revision petition under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 which is not maintainable before this Court.
Hence, the revision petition is dismissed being not maintainable.”
The petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition challenging the orders 26.02.2007 and 16.06.2009 (Annexures P-4 and P-5 respectively) on various grounds.
However, during the pendency of this petition, a Full Bench of this Court delivered judgment dated 14.07.2011 in the case of ‘Jasbir Singh and others v.
Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar Division Civil Writ Petition No.16853 o”
3. and others’ cited as 2011(3) PLR 545.wherein it was laid down that the revision is maintainable against the order passed by the authority under the Act or a proceeding arising out of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
After the aforesaid judgment of Full Bench, the petitioner amended the instant writ petition and also laid a challenge to the order dated 28.04.2010 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Revisional Authority.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the order (Annexure P-6) has to be quashed in view of the judgment of this Court in Jasbir Singh’s case (supra).as the said petition was dismissed only on the ground of maintainability and not on merits.
At this stage, the relevant part of the aforesaid judgment in Jasbir Singh’s case (supra) may be noticed, which reads thus: “54.
In view of the above discussion, we reach to the following conclusion:- (i) The State Government or the Registrar under Section 69 of the Punjab Act and the State Government under Section 115 of the Haryana Act can exercise its suo motu revisional jurisdiction on the application made by an aggrieved person, whether he is or not a party to the reference.
(ii) The remedy of revision is barred only in case where appeal against the impugned order lies under Section 68 of the Punjab Act or under Section 114 of the Haryana Act.
(iii) The remedy of revision is not barred in those cases where aggrieved person has a right of appeal under the Statutory Service Rules or Common Cadre Rules.
An aggrieved party can challenge the Civil Writ Petition No.16853 o”
4. order of Registrar or Deputy Registrar passed as an Appellate Authority under the Statutory Rules or Common Cadre Rules by filing a revision under Section 69 of the Punjab Act or under Section 115 of the Haryana Act as no remedy of appeal has been provided under Section 68 of the Punjab Act or under Section 114 of the Haryana Act against such order.
But, if the appellate order is passed by the official of the Society and not by the Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Society, no revision is maintainable against such an order.
The revision is maintainable only against the order passed by the authority under the Act or a proceeding arising out of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
(iv) The remedy of revision either suo motu or otherwise cannot be invoked against an order passed by the Society.
The said power can be exercised against the decision or order passed by the authority under the Act or a proceeding arising out of the Act or the Rules framed there-under.
(v) The suo motu power of revision cannot be exercised by the State Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, where a revision under Section 69 of the Punjab Act or under Section 115 of the Haryana Act itself is not maintainable either on the ground that against the impugned order an appeal has been provided under Section 68 of the Punjab Act or under Section 114 of the Haryana Act or on any other ground.
In case the Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, exercise suo motu power of revision on the application of an aggrieved party or otherwise, it must be specifically so stated in the order itself.”
Civil Writ Petition No.16853 o”
5. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute that the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the Punishing Authority as well as the Appellate Authority was maintainable before the Government under Section 69 of the Act.
In this view of the matter, the order dated 28.04.2010 (Annexure P-6) is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Revisional Authority under Section 69 of the Act as applicable to the Union Territory, Chandigarh.
Let the parties appear on 5th June, 2013 before the said authority, which shall decide the revision petition on merits of the case.
Disposed of.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE May 13, 2013 rps