S.S.NIJJAR, J. - (1.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner joined the service as a Handloom Export (Expert ?) in Punjab State Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society Limited in the year 1981. In 1990, in addition to his own duties, he was assigned the work of Production Centre, Processing House and Yarn Bank. On 31st August, 1998, he was transferred from Hoshiarpur to Shoddy Spinning Plant which was established at Humbra. The petitioner immediately joined on the transferred post. His place at Hoshiarpur was taken by another employee. On 4.7.2000, the petitioner was served with a charge- sheet for not handing over the complete charge of the Production Centre at Hoshiarpur. On the basis of the inquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, he was removed from the service, by order of the Managing Director dated 9.1.2001. Against the order of removal, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal on 6.7.2001. The order of removal was set aside by the Appellate Authority with liberty to the punishing authority to impose minor penalty. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the employer-respondent No. 1 filed revision petition under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 before the Additional Secretary Cooperation (Appeals) Punjab exercising the powers of State Government. The revision petition has been accepted and the order passed by the Appellate Authority has been set aside by order dated 10.10.2002 (Annexure P3).
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order dated 10.10.2002 by filing the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the revision petition is not maintainable under Section 69 of the Act. According to the learned counsel, no revision petition is maintainable against an order passed by the appellate authority under the Service Rules of 1995 of the respondent No. 1 society. The impugned order dated 10.10.2002 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Revisional Authority is wholly without jurisdiction; and void ab initio. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Govt. Employees Co-op. House Building Society Ltd. v. Dy. Registrar, Coo-op Societies, Rohtak, 1997(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 250(P&H). He further relied upon the Division Bench judgment in the case of Binpalka Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. v. Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, 1993(2) R.R.R. 1 : 1992(3) S.C.T. 395.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that no financial loss has been caused to the respondent-society and, therefore, the order of removal is not commensurate with the misconduct which has been proved. On merits, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Revisional Authority has exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the well reasoned findings and reasons recorded by the Appellate Authority after appreciation of the evidence led by the parties.;