Rajesh Bindal, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has approached this court impugning the order dated 29.7.2008, passed by Secretary Cooperation (Appeals), Punjab, whereby the order of punishment dated 20.2.2007 and 16.7.2007 passed by Additional Managing Director (G) and Managing Director of the Markfed respectively were set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Managing Director of the Markfed to decide the case afresh from submission of enquiry report onwards. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case, charge -sheet was issued to respondents No. 2 to 4. After considering the reply filed by them, enquiry officer was appointed, who submitted his report on 20.6.2006 exonerating the delinquent officers. The report was submitted to the punishing authority, who did not agree with the finding of the enquiry officer. After supplying a copy of the enquiry report to respondents No. 2 to 4 and affording them opportunity of hearing, they were awarded minor punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect and also recovery of the financial loss suffered by the Markfed. Respondents No. 2 to 4 challenged the same before the appellate authority, namely, Managing Director of the Markfed, but the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the order was impugned before the revisional authority, who vide impugned order, while setting aside the orders passed by the authorities below remanded the case back.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance upon a judgment of Full Bench of this court in Dr. K.G. Tiwari v. State of Haryana,, 2002 (2) SCT 915, submitted that once a charge -sheet has been issued to an employee for imposition of a major penalty, after enquiry minor punishment can be inflicted. In the present case, though initially the charge -sheet was issued for imposition of major penalty, however, finally after supplying copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent officers and affording them opportunity of hearing, minor punishment was imposed. The order passed by the revisional authority setting aside the same holding it to be without jurisdiction is erroneous, hence, liable to be set aside. At the time of hearing, no one represented respondents No. 3 and 4. The name of respondent No. 2 had been deleted vide order dated 18.11.2010 as he had expired. The writ petition was dismissed in default on 26.11.2011. Notice in the application for restoration of the petition was issued to the respondents. It is recorded in the order dated 5.8.2011 that despite service no one represented the respondents. The writ petition was restored to its original number. On 12.8.2011, notice was directed to be issued to counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4. As per office report, for the next date of hearing, the counsel had been informed, but still none represented the private respondents thereafter.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner was heard and the paper book perused.;