The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner for embezzlement, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the appeal timeline set by Service Rules, which was not met in this case.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Namit Kumar, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the Resolution dated 28.12.2015 (Annexure P-1) whereby he has been dismissed from service.

2. The brief facts, as have been pleaded in the present petition, are that the petitioner was working as Salesman at Waryam Khera, Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Limited at village Waryam Khera, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Society'). The charge of fertiliser, feed, agro chemicals, etc. was in the custody of petitioner. On 10-8-2011, the stock of Society was checked by the concerned Circle Inspector and he found shortage of stock of approximately Rs. 2,40,762/-. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted reply to the concerned Circle Inspector and he was granted time to deposit the money upto 25.08.2011. Thereafter, a letter was also issued to the President of the Society by the concerned Circle Inspector that if he failed to deposit the money upto 25-8-2011 then, disciplinary action would be taken against him in accordance with Service Rules 1997. Thereafter, the petitioner remained absent from the Society from 20-08-2011 to 04-09-2011 and he came back to society on 05-09-2011 and the stock in-charge of the petitioner was handed over by him to Sh. Rajesh Kumar Salesmen and vide Resolution dated 13-09-2011, he was suspended by the Managing Committee of the Society. Thereafter, vide resolution No.1 dated 13-09-2011, a sub-committee was formed to take disciplinary action against the petitioner and thereafter, a chargesheet was issued to him on 16-01-2012 and 15-05-2013. However, in the meantime, to recover the embezzled amount from the petitioner, an arbitration case amounting to Rs. 2,26,655/- (principal) + Rs. 10,991/- (interest) + Rs. 250/- (cost) i.e. a total amount of Rs. 2,37,896/- was filed against the petitioner, which was decided in favour of the Society and the petitioner was directed to deposit the said amount along with 10% interest. Thereafter, the sub-committee of the Society vide its Resolution No.1 dated 23-12-2015, recommended dismissal of the petitioner from services. Thereafter, on the recommendation of the sub-committee, the Managing Committee of the Society, vide its Resolution dated 28.12.2015, terminated the services of the petitioner.

3. Being aggrieved against the said Resolution dated 28.12.2015 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner filed an appeal under the Service Regulation, 1997 before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Fazilka and the same was dismissed being time barred as the appeal was to be filed within 60 days from the date of penalty, however, the appeal dated 15.12.2022, was filed by the petitioner after a lapse of about 07 years, however, the same was rejected on 05.06.2023. The operative part of the said order, reads as under:-

"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Order:-

After considering the Appeal filed by Vinod Kumar and statement given by the Secretary of the society, it is found that Shri. Vinod Kumar son of Om Parkash resident of village Waryam Khera was dismissed from service vide resolution dated 28.12.2015. In this regard, Shri. Vinod Kumar has sought time to file his reply. On 31.05.2023 Shri. Vinod Kumar has filed his reply in this office.

This appeal is heard as per the Rule 15(i) of the Punjab State Co-operative Agriculture Societies Service Rule, 1997. The relevant rule is reproduced hereunder:-

15. Appeal

(i) And Employee shall have a right to file an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 14 before the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies within 60 days.

According to this Shri. Vinod Kumar son of Shri. Om Parkash has to file an appeal against the resolution dated 28.12.2015 before this court within 60 days. Shri. Vinod Kumar has filed this appeal with a delay of approx. of 7 years. In this regard, the reply given by Shri. V