http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 10

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 4773 of 2006

PETITIONER:

The Shahabad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd

RESPONDENT:

Special Secretary to Govt. of Haryana Corp. & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/11/2006

BENCH:

S.B. Sinha & Dalveer Bhandari

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.24613 of 2005)

S.B. Sinha, J.

Leave granted.

Interpretation of Section 115 of the Haryana Co-operative Societies

Act, 1984 (for short, ’the Haryana Act’) calls for consideration in this appeal

which arises out of a judgment and order dated 12.9.2005 passed by the

Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.19569 of 2003.

Appellant is a cooperative society registered under the Co-operative

Societies Act. Respondent was appointed as Chief Accounts Officer in the

Appellant mill. On the ground that he has committed misconduct, two

charge-sheets were issued to him containing the following charges :

"(a) He failed to check and control the Mill accounts,

which resulted into issuance of false receipts of

cheques/cash/demand drafts thus putting the Mill

into financial losses.

(b) Failing to control the Mills Funds resulting into

crores of rupees lying in cash credit limit thus

putting the Mill to huge financial losses.

(c) Removal of official records from the office for

personal use.

(d) Approval of tour programme of Security Guards

for the months of December, 1995, January, 1996

and February, 1996 without his signatures.

(e) Availing of leave from 23.3.95 to 25.3.96 on false

pretexts.

(f) Verifying that Smt. Veena Sharma was an

employee of the Mill entitling her to get benefits,

whereas she has never been the employee of the

Mill.

(g) Did not attend the hearing of Courts in criminal

complaints filed on behalf of the Mill under 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act.

(h) Inspite of rejection of his leave, still remained

absent from duty w.e.f. 18.5.96 to 25.5.96."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 10

An Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the correctness or

otherwise of the said charges. Before the said Enquiry Officer, Appellant

herein examined two witnesses on 18.11.1996 and 23.12.1996, who were

also cross-examined by the respondent No.3 herein. Resignation was

tendered by Respondent No.3 on 13.2.1997. Admittedly, the same had not

been accepted on the ground that disciplinary proceedings had already been

initiated against him. Non-acceptance of the said resignation was

communicated to him by a letter dated 1.3.1997. In his letter dated 4.3.1997

a contention was raised by him that he had already relinquished his charge.

In view of termination of contract of employment, only one month’s salary

is required to be deducted from the amounts due to him. He, further, by a

letter dated 1.7.1997, stated that after tendering resignation he had got

another job of much higher status and salary and he was not interested in the

job of the Mill any more.

However, there existed a dispute as to whether the 3rd respondent had

found an alternative job or not.

It is not in dispute that the 3rd respondent did not attend the

proceedings of enquiry on several days. He contends that no notice was

served on him and furthermore as he was put under arrest and therefore, he

could not attend. In his absence the Enquiry Officer proceeded to hold the

enquiry ex parte. A report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on

21.10.1997. The Board of Directors issued a notice requiring the 3rd

respondent to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from

service. The contention of the 3rd respondent in this behalf was that despite

request, neither a copy of the enquiry report nor the copies of the depositions

of witnesses, who were examined as ex parte by the Enquiry Officer, had

been supplied. He was dismissed from service by an order dated

26.12.1998. Rel