Per Arun Kumar Goel, Judge 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing order No.3552-58 dated: 01.10.1996 whereby he has been dismissed; with a further direction to the respondents to re-instate him with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary with effect from Feberuary,1996 and also indicate his seniority without break. 2. Parties at the time of hearing of this writ petition were not at variance that the petitioner, who is a qualified Medical Assistant, was ap­pointed as such by the respondents in the Jammu and Kashmir Co-operative Supply & Marketing Federation Limited (hereinafter re­ferred to as JAKFED) in the year 1987. He was posted in the Medical Fair Price Shop, Rehari. near Children Hospital, Jammu. He was Incharge of the said shop and was dealing with the sales and purchase of medicines as also was handling the cash. What seems to have happened is that certain shortages as well as cash retention was detected by the Audit. In addi­tion to this, certain expired medicines were also detected in the store. In the former case short­ages/retention were found to the tune of Rs.2,03,837.53, and in latter case value of the expired medicines was Rs. 1,11,733.39. 3. In the aforesaid background petitioner was asked to explain and to make good the aforesaid amount. He did not come out straight in his reply to this. Thereafter formal charge sheet was served upon the petitioner when a sum of Rs.500/- per month was ordered to be de­ducted as per order dated: 10.02.1997, but from the month of July,95 it was increased to Rs.1000/- per month. After service of charge sheet petitioner submitted his reply, copy whereof is attached as Annexure "B" with the counter filed by the respondents. His stand in his reply was that the shortages have not been correctly assessed. Still he agreed to repay the full amount. While admitting his liability, he agreed to repay the amount in question in the sum of Rs.1000/- per month, and according to him upto May, 96 a sum of Rs. 15,000/- has been deducted, but he disputed his liability so far cost of expired medicines was concerned. Since inquiry was contemplated against the pe­titioner he was placed under suspension on 02.07.1996 vide Annexure PD4 and attached with District Manager, Udhampur. 15,000/- has been deducted, but he disputed his liability so far cost of expired medicines was concerned. Since inquiry was contemplated against the pe­titioner he was placed under suspension on 02.07.1996 vide Annexure PD4 and attached with District Manager, Udhampur. However matter appears to have received attention of the authorities and keeping in view his reply to the charge sheet impugned order dated 1st. Octo-ber,96 has been passed. Case of the petitioner further shows that with a view to get a copy of the order of his termination, he filed an earlier petition being SWP No. 1591/96 which was dis­posed of on 27.12.1996 with a direction to re­spondents to supply a copy of the order of termination to the petitioner within a week. 4. In the aforesaid background present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the plea that the order of termination is bad in law as it is opposed to principles of natural justice because it condemns unheard to his disadvan­tage behind his back. It has been stated that before imposition of major penalty of termina­tion he should have been heard. When writ petition was filed, interim order was passed by the court which was in the following terms:-" Notice. Reply within six weeks. CMP(IA-1/1997) Notice as above. Reply within the same time. Prima facie termination order of peti­tioner is illegal, therefore, it is stayed. The petitioner will resume the same duties which he was doing before the passing of this or­der subject to hearing the other side and re­spondents are directed to allow him to do so." 5. Thereafter writ petition was admitted on 6th July, 2k. Counter has been filed by the re­spondents. Their stand is that petitioner is a member of JAKFED, which is a Co-operative Society registered under the J&K Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as Society). As such this writ petition is not main­tainable. Another legal plea put up by the re­spondents is that as per Rules and Regulations of JAKFED petitioner has got an alternate effi­cacious and appropriate remedy by way of ap­peal under clause 2.17. Reason being that ad­mittedly penalty has been inflicted upon the pe­titioner under the said rules. As such this writ petition is not main­tainable. Another legal plea put up by the re­spondents is that as per Rules and Regulations of JAKFED petitioner has got an alternate effi­cacious and appropriate remedy by way of ap­peal under clause 2.17. Reason being that ad­mittedly penalty has been inflicted upon the pe­titioner under the said rules. While admitting the factual aspects of the case namely employ­ment of the petitioner and shortages/retention having not only been found but also having been admitted by the petitioner; it is specific case of the respondents that regarding expired medicines it was for him to have taken timely steps for obtaining refunds from the concerned company(s) by returning such expired medi­cines to ward off the loss in question. Reliance in this behalf is placed on Annexure "A" with their counter. 6. It has been urged on behalf of the peti­tioner that the impugned order of termination cannot be sustained in any circumstances as it condemns the petitioner unheard to his dis-ad-vantage because he was not heard before pass­ing of the same. This was least that should have been done by the respondents. This is the whole thrust of the case of petitioner as is evident from what is pleaded in the writ petition. On the other hand Shri Qazi, learned counsel appear­ing for the respondents stated that since respond­ents claim is admitted by the petitioner, there­fore, there was no need for holding any further inquiry. He has produced the original file of JAKFED relating to the case in question. By referring to it, it has been stated by Shri Qazi that so far petitioner is concerned, he could not offer any explanation in respect of the expired medicines, and regarding shortage/retention of amount, he admitted his liability. Thus he has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition being not maintainable. 7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and after having considered the re­spective submissions it is manifestly clear that so far sum of Rs.2,03,837.53 on account of shortages/retention of money is concerned, there is no dispute since petitioner has admitted his liability. Not only this, on his own showing the petitioner is getting Rs. 1000/- per month de­ducted to clear this liability. Not only this, on his own showing the petitioner is getting Rs. 1000/- per month de­ducted to clear this liability. It is a different matter that this amount does not even meet the interest part on the said sum, however, it is for the JAKFED to see how to salvage its money. Therefore to this extent claim of the petitioner made in the writ petition is devoid of any merit and cannot be accepted. At the same time it is left to the discretion and good sense of the re­spondents to ensure that how to retrieve the balance amount. Thus the claim made in the writ petition qua this amount is hereby rejected. 8. So far claim of JAKFED regarding ex­pired medicine is concerned, petitioner did not admit his liability. Thus parties had joined is­sue on that aspect of the matter. Petitioner was put under suspension, as such, unless inquiry as contemplated under law was conducted, re­spondents could not have held him liable for this amount. Record produced by Sh. Qazi shows that inquiry was contemplated and steps had been suggested to hold the same. How­ever, for reasons best known to them respondents did not care to proceed further in the matter and have abruptly passed the order. What seems to have weighed with them is that the petitioner had since admitted part of the claim, therefore, in their wisdom respondents did not take the matter regarding holding of inquiry to its logi­cal end. In these circumstances impugned or­der has been passed. Therefore it cannot be said that petitioner admitted his liability qua the expired medicines. 9. In the peculiar situation that has arisen in this case, further important question is what relief can be given to the petitioner in these cir­cumstances. In these circumstances impugned or­der has been passed. Therefore it cannot be said that petitioner admitted his liability qua the expired medicines. 9. In the peculiar situation that has arisen in this case, further important question is what relief can be given to the petitioner in these cir­cumstances. It is felt that interest of justice will be well served while disposing of the writ peti­tion finally in the following terms:- (a) So far claim of Rs.2,03,837.53 on ac­count of shortages/retention of money is con­cerned, there is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly his claim in the writ petition is dismissed to this extent; (b) So far claim in (a) above is concerned, respondents will be entitled to have such re­course including coercive process for recovery of its outstanding amount; (c) In case respondents decide to forego the claim of expired medicines, in such an event impugned order of termination suffers from no illegality and in such a situation the writ peti­tion shall stand dismissed. If JAKFED decides to forego this claim, it will not be entitled to stake its claim against the petitioner in any pro­ceedings whatsoever in this behalf; (d) In case JAKFED decides not to forego its claim on account of expired medicines as contained in (c) above, it shall hold an inquiry by appointing an inquiry officer on or before 15th April, 01, who shall complete the inquiry and give his report on or before 31st. July,01; and in case petitioner is a member of JAKFED as claimed by them, then they will have recourse to the relevant provisions of J&K Co-opera­tive Societies Act, as applicable to it. And in either situation petitioner shall be treated as under suspension and will be entitled to sus­pension allowance, if any, admissible to the employees of JAKFED. Such a direction has been necessitated keeping in view the fact that the matter is quite old and allowing it to linger on further will not be in the interest of parties. It is further clarified that in case either the inquiry officer is not appointed as well as inquiry/ other proceedings as aforesaid is not completed within this time frame, it will be presumed that the respondents have decided to forego the amount in terms of (c) above and in such a situ­ation also writ petition shall stand dismissed. It is further clarified that in case either the inquiry officer is not appointed as well as inquiry/ other proceedings as aforesaid is not completed within this time frame, it will be presumed that the respondents have decided to forego the amount in terms of (c) above and in such a situ­ation also writ petition shall stand dismissed. In either of the aforesaid situations service of the notice on petitioner through his learned counsel, Sh. Sunil Sethi, Advocate will be due and adequate service for proceeding against him. Thereafter matter shall proceed on day to day basis so that it is set at rest at the earliest and in no case later than the date fixed by this order. Record produced by Sh.Qazi has been returned to him in court today.