- (1.) The petitioner's challenge is to an order of dismissal that resulted after a charge-sheet had been issued against the petitioner, finding him guilty of some financial irregularities. The petitioner was an Assistant Engineer in Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation (Markfed) and the imputation of the charge was on an inspection carried out by the Executive Engineer, Markfed of the repair work at various godowns under the charge of petitioner on 18.04.1991. He had observed that there was a discrepancy in the entries found in the measurement books relating to the work carried out and the actual number of doors and windows that had been fixed, as also the discrepancies found in glass-panes with certain number of glass-panes as having been fixed when no work had been done. Yet another substantial allegation against the petitioner was that the quality of painting of steel and iron had been of very poor quality but entire payment had been issued. There have been clear-cut findings relating to the facts contained through the charges but the substantial contentions in the writ petition are only on issues of competence and jurisdiction of the respective officers, who had passed the orders. I will, therefore, advert in this writ petition of only the legal contentions raised in the writ petition.
(2.) The petitioner would contend that the conditions of service are governed by the Punjab Supply and Marketing Cooperative Service Common Cadre Rules, 1967, which were framed under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. Under the rules, the Administrative Committee is the competent authority for implementing the rules. The Administrative Committee again is comprised of President of Markfed as the Chairman, two members from amongst the elected Directors of the Board of Directors of Markfed and the Registrar or his nominee. The appointing authority is also the Administrative Committee and in terms of Rule 2.15, the authority which is competent to impose penalty is also the Administrative Committee. The contention in the writ petition is that the charge-sheet had been issued by the Managing Director of Markfed, who was not competent to issue the charge-sheet. Consequently, the action that resulted in the ultimate decision of dismissal also stands vitiated. The contention is taken on an express averment that the Managing Director himself had not been a delegated authority by the Administrative Committee to issue the charge-sheet or to order an enquiry.
(3.) The petitioner would contend that the tenure of the Board of Directors had expired on 31.10.1986 as also the tenure of the Administrative Committee. No Administrative Committee was constituted in accordance with law. The Registrar of the Cooperative Society was himself appointed as an Administrator under Section 26(1) (d) of the Act but the powers of the Administrative Committee had not been delegated to the Administrator, according to the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer's report had been submitted to the Administrator, who dismissed the petitioner from service on 17.2.1987.;