Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1207 (PNJ)

Jagtar Singh v. Tehsildar, Raikot

2000-10-04

KULWANT SINGH

body2000
ORDER Kulwant Singh, Registrar - This petition has been filed under Section 2(b), read with Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. The petitioner has prayed that respondents may be punished for violating orders of 23.9.1999 of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner joined the services of the Nathowal Cooperative Agricultural Service Society (hereinafter referred to as the Society) on 5.8.1976. He was promoted as Secretary of the Society, on 13.12.1978. The Managing Committee of the Society suspended the petitioner on 25.7.1997 and served him a charge-sheet on 5.8.1997. The petitioner replied to the charge-sheet on 19.8.1997. The Managing Committee terminated the services of the petitioner on 20.9.1997, allegedly on the basis of no evidence. 3. The petitioner challenged the orders of termination in an appeal before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana, who vide his orders of 19.2.1999 accepted the same and set aside the orders of termination. However, the Society filed a revision petition before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Patiala against the order of 19.2.1999 of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana. While the revision petition was pending, the Managing Committee of the Society was suspended and an administrator was appointed on 25.6.1999. The petitioner reported for duty on 26.6.1999. 4. The Society obtained an interim stay orders against suspension of its Managing Committee from the Punjab and Haryana High Court. On reinstatement, the Managing Committee of the Society again terminated the services of the petitioner on 2.8.1999. 5. The Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Patiala upheld the order of 19.2.1999 of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana. The Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Patiala also held that the second order of termination of petitioner was illegal and, therefore, the petitioner be reinstated with full back wages. 6. The Society preferred a revision petition before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab against the order of the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Patiala of 17.8.1999. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab issued notice on this revision petition on 30.8.1999 but did not grant any stay of the Society. The petitioner has stated that though he was legally entitled to resume his duties, the Society did not allow him to work as Secretary. Instead, the Society moved an application before the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jagraon on 13.9.1999 for issuing search warrants against the petitioner. The petitioner has stated that though he was legally entitled to resume his duties, the Society did not allow him to work as Secretary. Instead, the Society moved an application before the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jagraon on 13.9.1999 for issuing search warrants against the petitioner. These warrants were issued allegedly contrary to the provisions of Section 28 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. These were aimed to procure the record from the Secretary. The petitioner has stated that as per the bye-laws of the Society, the record should be in the custody of the Secretary. Since, he was duly reinstated, there were no reasons for him to hand over the record. The petitioner also apprehended that the Society would tamper with the record to defeat the claim of the petitioner. 7. The petitioner filed a petition under Sections 63 and 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab on 23.9.1999, seeking execution of orders passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana on 19.2.1999 and upheld by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Patiala on 17.8.1999. It was prayed in this petition that operation of search warrants issued by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jagraon may be stayed. Notice on this petition was issued and further action on search warrants was stayed on 23.9.1999 because all previous orders were in favour of petitioner and revision proceedings were pending in this Court. These orders were conveyed to the respondents vide endorsement No. RCS/EAR/CL/270 dated 23.9.1999. The petitioner also submitted a copy of stay order of 23.9.1999 to the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jagraon who acknowledged receipt thereof vide receipt No. 4716 dated 24.9.1999 issued at 9.30 AM. 8. On receipt of the copy of the order, the Society made an application for vacation of stay orders of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab on 29.9.1999. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies ordered the applicant to be heard on 30.9.1999. A copy of the application was given to the petitioner, who was present in this Court on 29.9.1999. 9. The petitioner has alleged that between 4:30 to 6:30 PM on 29.9.1999 five members of the Society including respondent No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 broke the locks of the premises where the record of the Society was kept and the record was taken away from the petitioner. 9. The petitioner has alleged that between 4:30 to 6:30 PM on 29.9.1999 five members of the Society including respondent No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 broke the locks of the premises where the record of the Society was kept and the record was taken away from the petitioner. He alleges that this has been done violating stay orders of 23.9.1999 of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab. Aggrieved with his forcible dispossession of record, the petitioner has preferred the present petition on 13.10.1999 for punishing respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 10. Notice of the petition was served upon the respondents. On 27.10.99, the counsel for respondents stated that he does not intend to file a reply to the petition. He did not press for order on his application for vacation of stay order of 23.9.99. On 3.11.1999, both the counsels argued their case and it was decided that Cooperative Inspector, incharge of the Society, SHO, Raikot, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jagraon and Shri Mohan Lal, Tehsildar, Raikot should appear in person on 8.12.1999 along with complete record. 11. On 8.12.1999, SHO, Raikot appeared in person and denied the charges of contempt of Court. Tehsildar, Raikot was not present. It was decided that SHO and Tehsildar, Raikot should file their respective affidavits to the effect that the locks were actually broken on 20.9.1999 to secure the record of the Society. A copy of Rojnamcha be also produced along with a list of persons present at the time of breaking of locks. 12. On 15.12.1999, SHO, Raikot filed his affidavit whereas, Tehsildar, Raikot did not do so. Shri Balwant Singh, Clerk in the office of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jagraon reported that Shri Mohan Lal, Tehsildar, Raikot has been transferred to Dasuya. Accordingly, it was decided that fresh notice should be sent to Shri Mohan Lal, Tehsildar, Dasuya to file his affidavit by 29.12.1999. Thereafter, the case came up on 12.1.2000 when Shri Mohan Lal, Tehsildar filed his affidavit, and the counsel for respondents No. 4-8 and other parties were directed to produce their documents/evidence, if any. 13. In the meantime, revision petition of the Society filed in this Court was dismissed on 12.1.2000. Thereafter, the case came up on 12.1.2000 when Shri Mohan Lal, Tehsildar filed his affidavit, and the counsel for respondents No. 4-8 and other parties were directed to produce their documents/evidence, if any. 13. In the meantime, revision petition of the Society filed in this Court was dismissed on 12.1.2000. Another revision petition of the present petitioner was also disposed of vide order of 9.2.2000, directing him to seek execution of orders of 19.2.99 of DRCS, Ludhiana and of 17.8.99 of J.R.C.S., Patiala, through DRCS, Ludhiana who is competent to do so under Section 63 of the Act. 14. On 26.7.2000, the counsel for the respondent Society submitted that witnesses of the petitioner should appear in person to file their affidavits so that he could cross examine them. Accordingly, the Counsel for the petitioner was directed to ensure presence of witnesses on 17.8.2000. On 17.8.2000, the counsel for the petitioner appeared along with Major Gurdev Singh son of Shri Puran Singh, Shri Gulzara Singh son of Shri Surjan Singh, Ex-Vice President, Shri Lakhbir Singh son of Shri Parduman Singh, Member, Shri Gurcharan Singh son of Shri Babu Singh, Ex-Member, Shri Pritam Singh son of Shri Bachan Singh, Member, Shri Major Singh son of Shri Bant Singh, Member, Shri Sant Singh, Driver-cum-salesman, Nathowal Cooperative Agricultural Service Society, Shri Baljit Singh, Secretary, Nathowal, Cooperative Agricultural Service Society, Shri Malkiat Singh, Peon, the Nathowal, Cooperative Agricultural Service Society. In addition, Shri Baldev Singh, Junior Assistant, office of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana, Shri Swarn Singh, Clerk, office of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jagraon and Dhanender Singh, Clerk of advocate for respondent society were present. The counsel for the respondent did not turn up despite waiting for him for two hours from 2:30 to 4:30 PM. The witnesses filed their respective affidavits but the counsel for respondent Society failed to cross-examine them. The counsel for the petitioner closed her evidence and stated that the petition be decided on the basis of facts on record. No submissions were made on behalf of the Society and other respondents and orders were reserved. The witnesses filed their respective affidavits but the counsel for respondent Society failed to cross-examine them. The counsel for the petitioner closed her evidence and stated that the petition be decided on the basis of facts on record. No submissions were made on behalf of the Society and other respondents and orders were reserved. While the orders were yet to be announced, Sarvshri Isher Singh, Piara Singh, Vice President, Piara Singh, Senior Vice President, Bahadur Khan, Teja Singh, Karnail Singh and Major Singh all committee members of the Managing Committee of the Society and alleged contemners filed an application on 18.9.2000, stating that petitioner has been reinstated and they apologize for their lapses, if any. Notice on this application was issued to the petitioner for 20.9.2000. 15. Both the counsels appeared on 20.9.2000. The counsel of the petitioner sought time to file her reply to the application, whereas respondents counsel produced a copy of joining report of the petitioner. 16. In the meantime, the counsel of the petitioner filed another petition on 29.9.2000 under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, for a direction to the society to hand-over the record to the petitioner and to set-aside the notices of 12.9.2000 and 26.9.2000 given by the Managing Committee of the Society to the petitioner. Notice on this petition was issued to the respondent for 4.10.2000. 17. On 4.10.2000, the counsel for the petitioner submitted her reply to the application of 18.9.2000 of the members of the Managing Committee of the Society. She pleaded for an amicable solution to the dispute between the petitioner and the Society. She enumerated the cases filed for and against the petitioner and the Society. 18. The counsel of the respondent said that the petitioner has resumed his duties, and the members of the Managing Committee have apologized for their lapses, if any. He pleaded that the petitioner should be directed to behave as an employee and work in the interest of the society. He said that he does not intend to file a reply to the petition of 29.9.2000. 19. Shri Jagtar Singh, petitioner, who was present in the Court, also stated that he wants to work with the society. He pleaded that a congenial working environment may be created by the management of the society and they may also be asked to hand-over the record to him. 20. 19. Shri Jagtar Singh, petitioner, who was present in the Court, also stated that he wants to work with the society. He pleaded that a congenial working environment may be created by the management of the society and they may also be asked to hand-over the record to him. 20. After considering the arguments of both the counsels and facts on record, I find that the petitioner has been reinstated into service of the society. The members of the committee have apologized for their lapses. There is apparently no other issue except that the petitioner desires to take charge of the record of the society. The members of the Managing Committee have a lurking fear that the petitioner would tamper with the record. This is understandable because of prolonged litigation and mis-trust between the petitioner and the managing committee of the society. There is a need to create congenial working environment in the society so that the Managing Committee and its employees are able to carry out the business of the society smoothly. Both the petitioner and the committee members have expressed their willingness to do so. Keeping this in view, I dispose of both the petition of 13.10.99 under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and petition of 29.9.2000 under Section 69 of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, with following directions : i) President of CASS, Nathowal should summon an urgent meeting within 30 days of communication of this order. ii) All members of the Managing Committee and the Secretary of the Society should attend the meeting. iii) DRCS, Ludhiana should direct as ARCS, who is not Incharge of the society, to attend the meeting as an independent observer. iv) Inventory of complete record of the society, whether in possession of the Committee or with the Secretary, should be prepared in this meeting. v) Completion status of the record should also be noted. Thereafter, the record should be retained in joint custody of the President and Secretary of the Society. vi) Any person dealing with the record should inform both, the President and the Secretary, and in case of any difference of opinion between the President and the Secretary, the matter should be referred to ARCS, Jagraon for appropriate necessary directions forthwith. Announced. Petition allowed.