Singhal, J. - (1.) Mohinder Singh Cheema (hereinafter to be called as "delinquent") was working as Manager with Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited (hereinafter to be referred as "Markfed"), Chandigarh at Shri Hargobindpur Co-operative Society Ltd. He was charge-sheeted as follows : "A wheat special was scheduled to be loaded from Shii Hargobindpur on 8.5.1977. You were directed "by the DMO, Gurdaspur to supervise the standardisation work at C.M.S. Shri Hargobindpur. The flying squad paid a surprise visit to the society and found the wheat bags weighing as less as 87 kg. Further, 50% wheat bags were of unstandard weight. Thus, you in connivance with FCI, Markfed and the staff of the Society, embezzled Markfed wheat stocks to the extent the wheat bags were found short in weight than the standard weight."
(2.) Shri H.S. Grewal, Deputy Manager (Marketing) was appointed as inquiry officer. Inquiry Officer exonerated the plaintiff of the charge. Managing Director of the Markfed, however, did not agree with the findings of the inquiry officer. He held that even though there was no direct evidence to prove that the delinquent had actually embezzled the stock in question but he could not be absolved of his responsibility for the shortages noticed at the time of surprise check by the flying squad. Managing Director passed order dated 1.4.1980 dismissing him from the service of the Markfed. Delinquent filed appeal before the Board of Directors which was dismissed on 1.9.1982. Thereafter, he filed revision before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Punjab. Chandigarh which was also dismissed on 10.11.1983. Thereafter, he filed suit for declaration against Markfed and the Registrar Co-operative Societies, Punjab Chandigarh to the effect that the order dated 10.11.1983 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh and the order dated 1.9.1982 passed by the Board of Directors of the Markfed and the order dated 1.4.1980 passed by the Managing Director of the Markfed dismissing him from service were illegal, null and void. ineffective, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice, in violation of the service rules, cryptic, non-speaking, with consequential relief that he is entitled to all benefits of service including pay and allowances since 1.4.1980 as if orders dated 1.4.1980/1.9.1982/10.11.1983 had never been passed. In the alternative for declaration to the effect that the order passed by the Managing Director of the Markfed dated 1.4.1980 whereby he had been removed from service and which got merged in the appellate order dated 1.9.1982 passed by the Board of Directors and which further got merged in the order dated 10.11.1983 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh are illegal, null and void, ineffective, in violation of service rules, cryptic, non speaking with consequential relief that he is entitled to all service benefits including pay and allowances. It was alleged in the plaint that the charge-sheet issued to him was based on no evidence. It did not contain the material on which it was based. It was drawn on the basis of suspicion only. Inquiry Officer had exonerated him of the charge levelled against him. No second show cause notice was served on him along with copy of the findings of the inquiry officer and no disagreement note of the Managing Director was supplied to him. Punishment was based on insinuation which was not the basis of the charge against him. It was alleged in the plaint that he was thus deprived of reasonable opportunity to defending himself. He was dismissed from service arbitrarily without there being any material and evidence on the record. There was no application of mind by the punishing authority. There was no application of mind by the appellate authority. There was no application of mind by the revisional authority. He was not given personal hearing.
(3.) Defendant contested this suit of the plaintiff. It was urged that the plaintiff could not have been absolved of his responsibility for the shortages noticed at the time of surprise check by the flying squad and since he had failed to perform his duty as a manager of the society it was no desirable to retain him in service. He was rightly dismissed from service. Limitation was also set up as barring the suit. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : 1. Whether the revisional order passed by defendant No. 2 and 14.11.1982 wherein appellate order dated 1.9.1982 and original order dated 1.4.1980 passed against the plaintiff stand merged, is illegal, null and void as mentioned in para No. 6 of the plaintiff? OPP 2. Whether the suit it barred by limitation? OPD 3. Whether this Court has no Jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 79 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act? OPP 5. Relief.;