- (1.) The petitioner has approached this court seeking quashing of the order dated 12.8.2008, passed by Secretary Cooperation (A), Punjab (respondent No. 1) and the order dated 5.10.2006, passed by Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Patiala Division, Patiala (respondent No. 2). Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was working as Peoncum-Chowkidar with the Karamgarh Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. (for short, 'the Society'). He filed a petition under Rule 80 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963 (for short, 'the Rules') before Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sangrur (respondent No. 3) impugning the resolution dated 16.4.2002 passed by the Society, whereby the resignation allegedly tendered by him was accepted and he was terminated from service w.e.f. 1.4.2002. Respondent No. 3, vide order dated 29.3.2006 accepted the petition and set aside the resolution. The order was challenged by the Society in a revision filed under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') before respondent No. 2, which was accepted and the order passed by respondent No. 3 was set aside. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner in a petition filed under Section 69 of the Act before respondent No. 1, who vide his order dated 12.8.2008, while setting aside the orders passed by respondents No. 3 and 2, directed the petitioner to approach the competent authority under the service rules against acceptance of his resignation. As the period in which the petitioner could avail of the remedy had expired, he was granted one month's time for the purpose. It is the aforesaid orders passed by respondents No. 2 and 1, which are challenged before this court.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case where the petitioner has been defrauded. He had worked in the Society satisfactorily for a period of about 10 years. There was no occasion for him to have tendered his resignation. A blank paper got signed from the petitioner was used as his resignation. The entire matter was written thereon by the Secretary of the Society. Though the resignation is dated 28.3.2002, but still the petitioner had continued working till 16.4.2002, i.e., till such time the resolution was passed by the Society and thereafter the petitioner was not permitted to work. As the petitioner had not tendered resignation, he had challenged the resolution before respondent No. 3 in terms of Rule 80 of the Rules. After going through the entire matter, respondent No. 3 accepted the prayer made by the petitioner and set aside the resolution. The society filed revision against the same before respondent No. 2. The same could not be entertained as respondent No. 3 in the present case was exercising the powers of Registrar. He further submitted that firstly, respondent No. 2 did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the revision and secondly, even respondent No. 1 in the revision filed by the petitioner could not have set aside the order passed by respondent No. 3, which was in favour of the petitioner, as the revision was filed by the petitioner against the order passed against him. The petitioner could not avail of remedy of appeal in the present case in terms of the service rules applicable for the reason that the case set up by the Society is that the petitioner had submitted his resignation, which was accepted. The appeal could be filed only in case there is any punishment imposed. He further submitted that if the case set up by the Society is taken on its face value, the termination otherwise is liable to be set aside for the reason that no enquiry was held against the petitioner.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a perusal of the resolution passed by the Society shows that though the resignation tendered by the petitioner has been referred to, but ultimately his services were terminated. Against that, the only remedy available to the petitioner was to file appeal before the competent authority.;