The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary proceedings must adhere to the prescribed procedure, and authorities must act in accordance with the rules and regulations. The scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act was also clarified.

A.N.Jindal, J.

1. This civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred to challenge the vires of Rule 28 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963 (for brevity, 1963 Rules) and also the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Service Societies Service Rules 1997 (Annexure P-15) and the order passed by the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to be illegal.

2. Charanjit Singh respondent was appointed as Peon-cum-Chowkidar by the Managing Committee of the Punjab Agricultural Services Society, Mohie. Kamaljit Singh was working as Salesman in the said society who expired on 8.2.1996 and was then replaced by Charanjit Singh respondent No. 6 (herein referred as the respondent No. 6). However, on appointment of Harkaran Singh as Salesman on compassionate grounds, on account of the death of Kamaljit Singh, the respondent No. 6 ceased to be the Salesman of the society. Since there was no Chowkidar for undertaking night duties, therefore, respondent No. 6 was deputed to work as Peoncum-Chowkidar along with Bhag Singh Peon already appointed in the society. Thereafter, vide resolution dated 9.5.2000, he was asked to perform night duties alternatively with Bhag Singh. On refusal made by the respondent No. 6 to work as Peon-cum-Chowkidar, he was imputed with misconduct and was condemned for committing disobedience. Later on, he apologized for his misbehaviour vide communication dated 12.5.1999 and3.6.1999. Sub- sequently, 21 bags of cement were found short in the stock of the respondent No. 6 about which he undertook to deposit the costs of bags on 30.9.1999. The respondent No. 6 again misbehaved with the Secretary of the Society for which he apologized on 5.10.1999. However, the society issued the charge sheet/show cause notice dated 15.5.2000. The Managing Committee of the Society vide resolution dated 3.7.2000 constituted an Enquiry Committee who after recording the evidence indicted the respondent No. 6. The Managing Committee after considering the enquiry report gave notice to the respondent No. 6. The respondent No. 6 filed reply and ultimately vide resolution dated 4.9.2000 (Annexure P-9) his services were terminated. The appeal preferred by him before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana was accepted vide order dated 28.3.2003 (Annexure P-10) and he was ordered to be reinstated but without back wages. Against the aforesaid order, both the respondent No. 6 as well as the Society-petitioner preferred two revision petitions. However the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Society, Patiala dismissed both the revision petitions vide separate orders. In the revision petition filed by the society which was dismissed vide order dated 15.3.2004, it was observed that three salesmen were working against the required strength of two and it was ordered that the services of the junior most salesman should be retrenched. In the revision petition preferred by the respondent No. 6, the Joint Registrar modified the order stating that the minor punishment of one annual increment with cumulative effect was sufficient. Against the orders of the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Patiala, two petitions were preferred under Section 16 of the Act before the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh who vide order dated 28.7.2004, dismissed the revision petition preferred by the society, whereas, the revision petition filed by the respondent No. 6 was allowed and he was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back wages.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the vires of the Rule 28 of 1963 Rules on the ground that as per sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 85 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, the State Government could frame the rules with regard to the qualifications and conditions of service and there is no specific power to delegate its power to Registrar for the said purpose and assuming for the sake of arguments if the Government validly delegated the pow