JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.

Leave granted.

Interpretation of Section 115 of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (for short, 'the Haryana Act') calls for consideration in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 12.9.2005 passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.19569 of 2003.

Appellant is a cooperative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. Respondent was appointed as Chief Accounts Officer in the Appellant mill. On the ground that he has committed misconduct, two charge-sheets were issued to him containing the following charges :

"(a) He failed to check and control the Mill accounts, which resulted into issuance of false receipts of cheques/cash/demand drafts thus putting the Mill into financial losses.

(b)Failing to control the Mills Funds resulting into crores of rupees lying in cash credit limit thus putting the Mill to huge financial losses.

(c)Removal of official records from the office for personal use.

(d)Approval of tour programme of Security Guards for the months of December, 1995, January, 1996

and February, 1996 without his signatures.

(e) Availing of leave from 23.3.95 to 25.3.96 on false pretexts.

(f)Verifying that Smt. Veena Sharma was an employee of the Mill entitling her to get benefits, whereas she has never been the employee of the Mill.

(g)Did not attend the hearing of Courts in criminal complaints filed on behalf of the Mill under 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

(h)Inspite of rejection of his leave, still remained absent from duty w.e.f. 18.5.96 to 25.5.96."

An Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the correctness or otherwise of the said charges. Before the said Enquiry Officer, Appellant herein examined two witnesses on 18.11.1996 and 23.12.1996, who were also cross-examined by the respondent No.3 herein. Resignation was tendered by Respondent No.3 on 13.2.1997. Admittedly, the same had not been accepted on the ground that disciplinary proceedings had already been initiated against him. Non-acceptance of the said resignation was communicated to him by a letter dated 1.3.1997. In his letter dated 4.3.1997 a contention was raised by him that he had already relinquished his charge. In view of termination of contract of employment, only one month's salary is required to be deducted from the amounts due to him. He, further, by a letter dated 1.7.1997, stated that after tendering resignation he had got another job of much higher status and salary and he was not interested in the job of the Mill any more.

However, there existed a dispute as to whether the 3rd respondent had found an alternative job or not.

It is not in dispute that the 3rd respondent did not attend the proceedings of enquiry on several days. He contends that no notice was served on him and furthermore as he was put under arrest and therefore, he could not attend. In his absence the Enquiry Officer proceeded to hold the enquiry ex parte. A report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 21.10.1997. The Board of Directors issued a notice requiring the 3rd respondent to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The contention of the 3rd respondent in this behalf was that despite request, neither a copy of the enquiry report nor the copies of the depositions of witnesses, who were examined as ex parte by the Enquiry Officer, had been supplied. He was dismissed from service by an order dated 26.12.1998. Relying on or on the basis of Section 114 of the Punjab Act, an appeal was filed before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, which was dismissed by an order dated 9.2.2001. A revision petition filed thereagainst before the State Government purported to be in terms of Section 115 of the said Act was allowed by an order dated 29.10.2003, holding :

"(a)The inquiry was fixed on 9.7.97, 12.7.97, 16.7.97 and 25.7.97. It is difficult to believe that notices would have been received by the Respondent herein by post in time.

(It is important to note here that 2