IMPORTANT POINT
Cooperative Society - Revision petition under Section 69 of the Act against the order passed by the Appellate Authority is maintainable.

S.S. NIJJAR, J.

1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner joined the service as a Handloom Export 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 P-3).

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.

3. 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 abinitio. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Govt. Employs Co. House Building Society Ltd. vs. Dy. Registrar, Coo-op Society, Rohtak, (P&H) 1997 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 250. He further relied upon the Division Bench judgment in the case of Binpalka Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. vs. Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, 1992 (3) S.C.T. 395.

4. 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 commiserate 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.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, however, submits that these arguments would not be open to the petitioner in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Punjab State Handloom Weavers Apex Society Limited Vs. State of Punjab 1996 (1) S.C.T. 156.

6. On merits he submitted, on the basis of the averments made in the written statement, that the petitioner is wrongly claiming that no financial loss has been caused to the respondent-society. The petitioner has allowed credit purchasing of articles amounting to Rs. 2,42,100.96 and about Rs. 52,813/- are still to be recovered. This misconduct has been duly proved against the petitioner on the basis of the evidence led before the Enquiry Officer.

7. We have considered the subsections made by the learned counsel for parties.

8. We are unable to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the maintainability of the revision petition. An identical i