Judgment:
LPA No.156 of 2012 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 28.01.2014 LPA No.156 of 2012 (O&M) Jaswant Pal …Appellant Versus The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: - Mr.Raghbir Tejpal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.B.S.Rana, Advocate for respondent No.2.
JASBIR SINGH,J (Oral) CM No.375 of 2012 This is an application filed under Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of delay of 93 days in re-filing the appeal.
Keeping in view the averments, made in the application, delay of 93 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
Letters Patent Appeal This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 13.05.2011 dismissing the writ petition No.5713 of 1992 filed by the appellant.
By filing that writ petition, the appellant had laid challenge to an order dated 15.04.1986 terminating his services for having embezzled the amount, detail of which is given in that order.
He also laid challenge to an order dated 10.02.1992 dismissing his appeal.
The above said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge stating that the charges levelled against the Atul Kumar Tripathi 2014.02.24 12:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.156 of 2012 (O&M) -2- appellant were proved on record.
As per finding given by the Enquiry Officer, he had embezzled some amount from the Society.
Before the learned Single Judge, the argument was raised regarding competency of the Managing Director to pass the punishment order by stating that power lies only with the Board of DirectORS.That argument was negatived by observing as under: “The removal of the petitioner had been made on the charges of causing stock shortage of Rs.4330.47, making some alterations in the attendance register and drawing excess TA/DA and also availing on some advance which is still not recovered from him.
To all these charges, there had been justification given by the petitioner.
It may not necessary to examine all factual details, since on the merits of the contention raised, the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have considered to hold that the petitioner had been guilty of the charges levied against him.
On the tenability of the order as one having been issued by a person, who was incompetent, the second respondent- Management has joined issues in the written statement by urging that Rule 1-A had been amended and as per the amended Rules since 1983, the Managing Director was the competent authority to make appointment of staff of all categories carrying initial basic pay upto Atul Kumar Tripathi 2014.02.24 12:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.156 of 2012 (O&M) -3- Rs.250/-.
In fact the issue of competency was not even urged before the authority when the punishment was imposed or before the appellate authority when the petitioner was trying to assail the order passed by the competent authority.
Though, I have not the copy of the amended rules, I will not think that this matter must be considered taking into consideration the objections which is raised by the petitioner.
The issue of competency though it would have been relevant, I will not take that in favour of the petitioner by the only fact that if such an objection was tenable he could not have failed to take it at fiRs.instance or at the time when the petitioner ought to have been aware of the amended rules as referred to in the written statement of the second respondent.”
.
It was rightly noticed that as per amended Rules from the year 1983, the Managing Director is the competent authority to make appointment of the Staff of all the categories carrying initial basic pay upto ` 250/- and he was also competent authority to impose punishment.
Not only as above, it was specifically noticed that the point of jurisdiction was never raised by the appellant when proceedings were initiated against him; further when show cause notice was given after enquiry and also when appeal was filed.
The point of jurisdiction, it is rightly stated, should have been taken at an early stage.
Having not taken the same, the Atul Kumar Tripathi 2014.02.24 12:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.156 of 2012 (O&M) -4- appellant has acquiesced his right to lay objection to the order passed by the Managing Director.
It appears that by taking that objection he has made effort to prolong the matter and nothing else.
No case is made to interfere in the order.
Dismissed.
(JASBIR SINGH) Judge (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU) Judge January 28, 2014 Atul Atul Kumar Tripathi 2014.02.24 12:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh