Punjab-Haryana High Court
Daya Nand vs State Of Haryana on 11 January, 2001
Author: Mehtab S. Gill
Bench: Mehtab S. Gill
ORDER Mehtab S. Gill, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing suspension order dated 20.7.2000 (Annexure P8).
2. The petitioner has averred that he joined Haryana State Co-operative Development Federation Limited, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as Harcofed) in the year 1972 as a Distributor and was promoted as Compositor on 2.12.1974 and was further promoted as Store Keeper on 12.1.1989. Since 1989, lie is holding the post of Store Keeper-cum-Assistant. The Government appointed Shri B.P. Jangra as Chairman of Harcofed in January, 2000. At that time, Shri S.P. Kaushik was the Managing Director of Harcofed. After being appointed as Chairman, respondent No. 5 started interfering in the day to day affairs of Harcofed and was all the time trying to influence Shri S.P. Kaushik, Managing Director Shri S.P. Kaushik did not come under the influence of respondent No. 5 and he filed a complaint against respondent No. 5 alleging coercion and undue influence being exerted by respondent No. 5. Shri S.P. Kaushik levelled various allegations against respondent No. 5. A copy of complaint dated 24.4.2000 is annexed as P1.
3. Since respondent No. 5 was interfering in the day to day affairs of the Harcofed, he and the Managing Director came into confrontation. As a counter blast, respondent No. 5 lodged F.I.R. No. 238 against Shri S.P. Kaushik, the then Managing Director, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 120-B I.P.C. and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station Jind on 24.5.2000. In the F.I.R. the present petitioner and three other persons were also named. It has been further averred that before lodging of the F.I.R. respondent No. 5 started making all sorts of illegal demands from Shri S.P. Kaushik. He demanded a coloured Television, Air Conditioner, Double Bed and other costly items for being kept at his residence. The Managing Director could not accede to the demands of Chairman as the financial position of Harcofed was very poor. It has been further averred that F.I.R. was a counter blast as the offence, if any, was committed at Chandigarh but since respondent No. 5 was an influential person, he had got the F.I.R. registered at Police Station City Jind.
4. The petitioner has further averred that after the registration of F.I.R., he filed Criminal Misc. No. 18699-M of 2000 before the High Court and was granted anticipatory bail on 6.9.2000 (Annexure P2). In pursuance of aforesaid F.I.R., Shri S.P. Kaushik was transferred from the post of Managing Director on 5.5.2000 and was further placed under suspension on 6.6.2000. Similarly, the petitioner who was working as Store Keeper/Assistant was shifted vide order dated 10.4.2000 (Annexure 3). After the transfer of Shri S.P. Kaushik, Shri S.P. Sharma was posted as a Managing Director of Harcofed (Annexure P4).
5. Shri S.P. Sharma, new Managing Director, Harcofed was being unduly influenced by respondent No. 5 to suspend the petitioner and other officials who were named in the F.I.R. Shri S.P. Sharma refused to oblige respondent No. 5 and wrote a letter dated 18.7.2000 to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana. In the letter, he sought advice from the Registrar as to whether some action is required against the officials named in the F.I.R. or not. Letter dated 18.7.2000 has been attached as Annexure P5. After writing of this letter, Shri S.P. Sharma, respondent No. 3 proceeded on leave from 19.7.2000 to 28.7.2000. During this intervening period of ten days, Registrar Co- operative Societies, Haryana, respondent No. 2 assigned duties to Shri Sukhbir Singh Passi, Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana (respondent No. 4) who was given additional charge of Managing Director, Harcofed on 20.7.2000. The Chairman of Harcofed (respondent No. 5), wrote a letter to respondent No. 4 to place the petitioner and two other officials i.e. Shri Kehar Singh and Shri Ram Pal, Assis-
tant Managers (Sales) under suspension. This letter was written on 20.7.2000, on the same day when respondent No. 4 look over additional charge as Managing Director of Harcofed. A copy of letter dated 20.7.2000 has been attached as Annexure P7. Respondent No. 4 to please the Chairman, without applying his mind, suspended the petitioner along with two other officials on the same day vide order dated 20.7.2000 (Annexure P8). The said order is reproduced as under :-
"Shri Daya Nand, Store Keeper, working in the Haryana Co-operative Press, is hereby placed under suspension with immediate effect. The charge-sheet containing charges levelled against him will follow. He will be allowed subsistence allowance as permissible under Rules. During the period of suspension, he will mark his presence in the Head Office.
Managing Director.
Endst. No. Gst./5-2000/2538-40 dated 20.7.2000"
Notice of motion was issued to the respondents.
6. Respondent No. 3, Managing Director, Harcofed, filed his reply. In this reply, he stated that respondent No. 4 i.e. Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies who was given additional charge of the post of Managing Director during the leave period of Shri S.P. Sharma, had no authority to suspend the petitioner and it was only the Managing Director who was competent to place the petitioner under suspension. He has further started that the competent authority to inflict any punishment on the employee of Harcofed is Managing Director and not the Registrar as envisaged under Section 31 of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act and Bye-law No. 32 of the Model Bye-taws.
7. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the respondents, have gone through the petition, written statement and the annexures attached therewith.
8. Going through order dated 20.7.2000 passed by the Managing Director (Annexure P8) (supra), it has come out that a charge-sheet was to be handed over to the petitioner containing the charges levelled against him. It was clearly stated that charge-sheet will follow. The counsel for the petitioner and the respondents have stated at the Bar that as of date, no charge-sheet has been served on the petitioner. This is a clear violation of the order dated 20.7.2000 (Annexure P8). Five months have passed but no charge-sheet has been framed till date. I will not go into the merits of the case as this itself is sufficient ground to quash, Annexure P8 placing the petitioner under suspension. The petitioner is re-instated forthwith. The competent authority will be at liberty to charge the petitioner of any misconduct or otherwise and then to further proceed as per law.
With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
9. Petition disposed of.