IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 05.02.2026 Jagir Singh .....Appellant Versus Markfed Chandigarh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present : Mr. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate and Mr. J.S. Bhatia, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sandeep Vermani, Advocate and Mr. Aditya Vermani, Advocate for the respondents.

****

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff impugning the judgments and decrees dated 13.11.1990 and 02.12.1992, passed by the learned Trial Court and First Appellate Court respectively, whereby the suit of the appellant/plaintiff has been dismissed. Parties to the lis hereinafter shall be referred to by their original position before the learned Trial Court.

2. In brief, the plaintiff (Jagir Singh) instituted a suit against the defendant-Markfed for declaration to the effect that the order dated 22.12.1988, whereby the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect and recovery was inflicted upon him is illegal, null and void, with further relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from effecting any recovery of shortage from the salary of the plaintiff on the basis of the impugned order.

2.2 The case of the plaintiff, as briefly stated, is that he joined the defendant-Markfed in the year 1978 as Salesman and he was wrongly charge-sheeted and on the basis of wrong enquiry report, was awarded the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect as well as recovery and the reply furnished by him was discarded without any reason and the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report without adopting proper procedure and even without affording any opportunity to the plaintiff of being heard and as such, the enquiry report as well as the impugned order of punishment is based on conjectures and surmises, which is not a speaking order and is bad in the eyes of law. It has also been alleged that the punishing authority has wrongfully discarded the exact position responsible for the shortage in wheat as well as 35 B/S of wheat, as alleged in the charge sheet, because the stock in question was flood affected and in a damaged condition. It has further been pleaded that the appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the impugned order dated 22.12.1988 has also been dismissed wrongfully by the Administrator of the Markfed, vide his order dated 06.09.1989. Upon notice of the plaint, defendants filed written statement on 18.01.1990 taking preliminary objections that since no notice under Section 79 of the Punjab Cooperatives Societies Act, 1961 has been served upon the defendants and no legal notice has ever been served upon the Registrar Co-operative Societies, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable, since the Civil Courts at Sultanpur Lodhi has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit being barred by the provision of Section 82 of the Punjab Co- operative Societies Act, 1961. In the said suit, the following issues were framed:-

1) Whether the order dated 22.12.88 is null and void as alleged in the plaint? OPD.

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP.

3) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable for want of notice u/s 79 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961? OPD.

4) Whether the Civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD.

5) Whether the defendants have passed the impugned order after conducting proper enquiry? OPD.

6) Relief.

3. Issue Nos.1 and 5 were decided against the appellant/plaintiff, whereas Issue Nos.3 and 4 were not pressed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and, therefore, the same were held as unproved and decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. However, Issue No.2 was decided against the plaintiff on the basis of findings recorded at Issues No.1 and 5 by the Trial Court. Consequently, the suit was dismissed by the learned Sub J