JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the inquiry report dated 04.10.2017 (Annexure P-6) conducted and submitted by respondent No.2 on the directions issued by respondent No.1.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was appointed as Salesman on 10.10.1983 in respondent No.4- Society. On 31.01.2017, after rendering a satisfactory service of more than three decades, the petitioner superannuated on the same date. One complaint (Annexure P-1) was given by respondent No.6 on the eve of the retirement of the petitioner. Admittedly, prior to that there was no pending charge sheet or disciplinary proceedings. The procedure for filing application is provided under Section 50 of the Punjab State Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The perusal of the same indicates that Registrar-respondent No.1 may on his own or on the application of the majority of the Committee can hold an inquiry either himself or direct someone to hold an inquiry into the constitution working and financial condition of the Co- operative Society. As such, it is clear that inquiry cannot be initiated on the ipse dixit of a person who is not a primary member of the Society. Respondent No.6 has no locus standi to file any complaint rather he is having a long drawn enmity with the family of the petitioner and FIR under Section 302 of IPC has been lodged against his family members by the family of the petitioner. Due to the enmity between the families a number of criminal cases are pending in various Courts. Respondent No.6 made omnibus allegations regarding misappropriation and taking financial benefits by obtaining a cash credit loan limits, whereas, it has been alleged that the petitioner does not own any agricultural land.

3. He further submits that none of the members of the Society or the Managing Committee has ever come forward and made any complaint against the petitioner. As such, the very initiation of the impugned inquiry is contrary to the mandate of Section 50 (ibid). Once the initiation of inquiry itself suffers from incurable illegality, the report holds no value in the eyes of law and liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Further, the petitioner has made a detailed reply to the show cause notice and petitioner has taken land on lease, as such, there is no embargo on getting cash credit loan limits. He further submits that the father of the complainant-respondent No.6, who was the Senior Vice President of the Society had himself approved these cash credit limits, as such, the complaint made against the petitioner is baseless. Further, the son of the petitioner was appointed as the post of Peon was lying vacant and work of the Society was suffering due to non-availability of Peon. Thus, the Managing Committee who is the appointing authority, temporarily employed son of the petitioner as Peon in the Society. The brothers of the complainant, respondent No.6 have been granted the benefit of cash credit limits in spite of the fact that they do not own any agricultural land. Any action dehors the procedure provided under Section 50 and financial loss to the Society is not sustainable in the eyes of law. A complaint is made on fanciful suspicion only to wreak vengeance upon the petitioner due to private spite and long drawn enmity. The enquiry was initiated in a predetermined manner at the behest of respondent No.6. The members of the Managing Committee were never associated rather respondent No.6, is stranger to the affairs of the Society and has no locus standi, was allowed to appear as a witness and the detailed reply filed by the petitioner was never considered. Moreover, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the absence of any financial loss suffered by the Society is meaningless.

4. Per contra, learned counsel f