Branch Manager, Markfed Patti, Dist ... vs M/S Joban Trading Co on 13 September, 2021
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia ... Date of Decision: 13.09.2021
The Branch Manager, Markfed Patti, District Tarn Taran ........Petitioner(s)
vs.
M/s. Joban Trading Co. Merchant and Commission Agent
..........Respondent
quashing order dated
30.04.2008, Annexure P-4, passed by Managing Director, MARKFED as
well as order dated 30.05.2017, Annexure P-6, passed by the learned ... case are that
petitioner, who was working as field officer with respondent-MARKFED,
was served with charge sheet dated 06.12.2000 for causing loss
Field
Officers in the Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing
Federation Ltd. (Markfed) and over the allocation of wheat stock
pertaining to the year ... Annexure P13) against petitioner No.2 Gurcharan Singh. It is subsequent
thereto, Markfed initiated proceedings under Section 55 / 56 of the Punjab
Co-operative Societies
licence of the petitioners' firm has been
cancelled by Markfed. He also contends that the FIR has been hastily lodged
and there are several ... errors which were sought to be corrected by the Senior
Branch Officer, Markfed, as reflected in Annexure P5. It is also stated by the
Senior
registered by Harwinder Singh, whose father
was working as Watchman in Markfed. Deepak Kumar (petitioner) was also
working as Watchman in Markfed and he told ... improbable as father of the complainant was also a Watchman in
Markfed and he could have assured as to whether the petitioner could
arrange
route no 212A. That when the Bus
reached near Markfed Godown then the fan Belt
of the Bus had developed defect . Then the Bus
conductor ... another Bus and the driver after leaving the Bus at
Markfed Godowns left for Patiala and had given
the note in the register that
licence of the petitioner's firm has been
cancelled by Markfed. He also contends that the FIR has been hastily lodged
and there ... errors which were sought to be corrected by the Senior
Branch Officer, Markfed, as reflected in Annexure P3. The petitioner is 52
years
petitioners contends that the petitioners'
firm has a valid licence from Markfed, Punjab, for selling rice. It is alleged in
the FIR that
petitioner in the present petition, are that he was employed with
Markfed (here-in-after referred to as 'the respondent-Federation
planned
conspiracy, whereas, two other cheques were given by society to
MARKFED, which were dishonoured. In that way, the petitioner
himself is a victim
