Termination without following due process and principles of natural justice is legally invalid.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India , is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the impugned order dated 26.08.1999 passed by respondent No.1 and the resolution dated 16.03.1998 passed by respondent No.3 whereby the services of petitioner have been terminated and to restore the order dated 24.09.1998 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.2. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing respondent No.3 to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits along with full backwages.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was appointed as Salesman on 16.06.1981 by respondent No.3 and on 17.09.1997, the petitioner was suspended and a charge- sheet was served upon him on 10.10.1997 (Annexure P-1). A Sub- Committee of the Managing Committee of respondent No.3 was constituted and the petitioner was directed to appear before the Sub- Committee on 28.02.1998 as discernible from Annexure P-3. The petitioner by filing a detailed reply (Annexure P-2) to the charge-sheet, denied the allegations on the ground that the charge-sheet has been served by an incompetent authority. In spite of the fact that the petitioner remained in the office of respondent/Society for causing appearance before the Sub-Committee from 10:00 AM to 05:00 PM but no member of the Sub-Committee was present there. On 02.03.1998, the petitioner wrote a letter (Annexure P-4) by reiterating his grounds taken in the reply to the Administrative Committee, without following the prescribed procedure and in violation of the principles of natural justice, respondent No.3 passed the impugned termination order dated 20.04.1998 (Annexure P-5) which was received by the petitioner on 26.04.1998. The petitioner, therefore, filed a statutory appeal (Annexure P-6) and pleaded specific grounds with regard to passing of the impugned punishment without appointing any Enquiry Officer or Presenting Officer and also relied upon Regulation 14 of the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Service Societies Service Rules , 1997 (in short ‘the Rules of 1997’) and emphasized that the impugned action of termination has been taken in complete derogation of the procedure prescribed under Regulation 14 of the Rules of 1997. Thereafter, respondent No.3 filed written statement and admitted that no Presenting Officer or Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Appellate Authority found force in the grounds taken in the appeal and allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and set-aside the order of termination on 24.09.1998 (Annexure P-8). Thereafter, respondent No.3 filed revision petition under Rule 15 of the Rules of 1997 against the order dated 24.09.1998 passed by the Appellate Authority. Thereafter, respondent No.1 without considering the fact that no opportunity was given to the petitioner in terms of Regulation 14 of the Rules, of 1997 and passed the impugned termination order by accepting the ex parte allegations, however, the Revisional Authority had set-aside the well-reasoned order passed by the Appellate Authority on 26.08.1999 (Annexure P-10). The petitioner challenged the same by filing the instant writ petition and this Court after prima facie satisfied with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner has ordered status quo regarding service of the petitioner while issuing notice of motion on 04.11.1999. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in The U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited v