Back
2015 Supreme(P&H) 1014
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Harinder Singh Sidhu, J.
Chhiniwal Cooperative Agricultural Multipurpose Society Limited Chhiniwal - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and Ors. - Respondent
CWP No. 2820 of 2012 (O&M)
Decided On : 03-07-2015
For the Petitioner:Preetwinder Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ajaib Singh, Addl. A.G.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the employer's right to suspend an employee, the requirement to pay subsistence allowance, and the limitations on the duration of suspension without approval as per Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules.
Headnote:
Suspension - Cooperative Agricultural Society - Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules - Sections 326, 325, 148, 149 IPC - [Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules] - The court discussed the legality and validity of the suspension order, the non-payment of subsistence allowance, and the relevant legal provisions. The court highlighted the employer's right to suspend an employee, the requirement to pay subsistence allowance, and the limitations on the duration of suspension without approval.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Cooperative Agricultural Society, sought to quash orders related to the reinstatement of an employee who had been suspended and subsequently terminated due to criminal charges and embezzlement allegations. The employee filed a petition challenging the suspension and non-payment of subsistence allowance, which was allowed by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the initial suspension order was legal and valid, but its continuation beyond six months without obtaining the prior approval of the Assistant Registrar and the non-payment of subsistence allowance were illegal. The court held that the employee was entitled to be paid 50% of his salary as suspension allowance for the first six months and full salary thereafter.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the suspension order, non-payment of subsistence allowance, and the compliance with Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the employer's right to suspend an employee, the requirement to pay subsistence allowance, and the limitations on the duration of suspension without approval as per Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules.
Final Decision: The petition was partly allowed, and the court modified the order to revoke the continuation of the suspension after six months and directed the payment of suspension allowance to the employee.
1. The petitioner - The Chinniwal Cooperative Agricultural Multipurpose Society Ltd. has filed this petition praying for directions to quash the order dated 3.5.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No. 3, whereby, the petition filed by respondent No. 5 for setting aside the order dated 11.4.2007, by which he had been placed under suspension, which suspension had continued for more than six months without the approval of the Assistant Registrar and during which period he had not been paid any subsistence allowance, was allowed and he had been ordered to be reinstated in service. Also challenged is the order dated 12.7.2011 (Annexure P- 5) passed by respondent No. 2, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the above order was dismissed.
2. The relevant facts, in brief, as stated in the petition are that respondent No. 5 was appointed as a salesman in the petitioner Society in the year 1986. In the year 1989, he was promoted as the Secretary of the Society. In the year 2007, an FIR No. 10 under Sections 326, 325, 148, 149 IPC was registered against him. He was arrested on 29.3.2007 and remained confined in jail till 12.4.2007, when he was granted bail.
3. On account of his arrest and detention in custody, the petitioner society passed a resolution dated 11.4.2007, whereby he was placed under suspension. It was also decided to issue a separate charge sheet to him on the same allegations. Certain other complaints were also received against him on behalf of the members of the society and the petitioner Society appointed one Sh.Harbans Singh as Inquiry Officer, who after conducting a detailed inquiry submitted his inquiry report dated 14.5.2008 giving a finding that respondent No. 5 had embezzled an amount of Rs.8,95,153/-. Though, respondent No. 5 was repeatedly asked to participate in the inquiry, but he did not. Based on the findings in the inquiry report, the services of respondent No. 5 were terminated vide order/resolution dated 2.6.2008 (Annexure P-3).
4. On 18.8.2009, respondent No. 5 filed a petition under Rule 13 of the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Societies Service Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "1997 Rules") challenging the continuance of his suspension beyond a period of six months without approval of the Assistant Registrar and non-payment of subsistence allowance as being in contravention of Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules. Respondent No. 3 vide his order dated 3.5.2010 ordered that respondent No. 5 be reinstated in service and his salary due after 11.4.2007 be disbursed to him. It was also held that the suspension order had not been passed in conformity with the service rules. The petitioner society filed revision petition against the above order. The revision was dismissed by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 12.7.2011. However, the order dated 3.5.2010 was modified to the extent that the resolution of the society dated 11.4.2007 was set aside for the reason that respondent No. 5 had not been paid his subsistence allowance after his suspension.
5. It is the aforesaid two orders that have been challenged in the present writ petition.
6. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 (the official respondents) the impugned orders have been defended by stating that as the petitioner society did not pay the subsistence allowance to respondent No. 5 and did not get the permission of the competent authority to keep respondent No. 5 under suspension beyond six months, hence the impugned orders were rightly passed. But quite pertinently, it has also been pointed out that the services of the respondent No. 5 were terminated on 2.6.2008, whereas, the petition challenging the suspension order dated 11.4.2007 was filed on 18.8.2009 and in the said petition, the order of termination has not been challenged. Therefore, it has been asserted that respondent No. 5 is not eligible to join his duty taking the benefit of the orders dated 3.5.2010 and 12.7.2011 and for cl
