High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Harbans Singh v. Gurninder Singh & Anr. - COCP-1342-1999  RD-P&H 5130 (2 August 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
COCP No.1342 of 1999
Date of decision: August 7, 2006.
Gurninder Singh & Anr.
Present: Shri Harit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri M.S. Bedi, Advocate for the respondents.
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
There is a chequered history of litigation between the petitioner, on the one hand, and the Society, where he was employed as a Secretary, on the other hand. The respondents herein are office-bearers of the Society.
It is alleged that earlier the petitioner was arbitrarily dismissed from service by the Society vide order dated 6.4.1993 and the said order was successfully challenged by him before the Secretary, Cooperative Societies, which was further upheld by this Court in CWP No.10291 of 1995 (Annexure P-1) and attained finality after dismissal of SLP of the Society by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, instead of complying with the aforesaid orders, the respondents again placed the petitioner under COCP No.1342 of 1999 -: 2 :-
suspension. Though, operation of the said suspension order has been stayed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, yet the petitioner was not being reinstated and, thus, the respondents are guilty of committing contempt of court, that this petition has been filed.
In response to the show cause notice, the respondents have come up with a plea that after his reinstatement in terms of the previous order of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, which was upheld by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner was again charge-sheeted and placed under suspension. It was against the order of suspension dated 22.7.1996 that he approached the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, who stayed the same and directed his reinstatement vide order dated 9.4.1997 (Annexure P-3). It is further explained that much water has flown thereafter inasmuch as the disciplinary proceedings were concluded and the petitioner was dismissed from service on 9.12.1997. It is, thus, contended that by not reinstating the petitioner in terms of the order dated 9.4.1997 passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, the respondents have not committed any contempt of court.
After hearing Learned Counsel for the parties at length and having regard to the fact that the order to reinstate the petitioner passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies was of interlocutory in the nature pending disciplinary proceedings which have culminated into passing of a final order of dismissal from service, no case for continuing with these contempt proceedings is made out. Consequently, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to impugn the order of dismissal before an appropriate forum, if not done already. If the petitioner challenges the said order before the appellate authority within a period of one month from COCP No.1342 of 1999 -: 3 :-
today, the respondents shall not take the objection of limitation and any such appeal shall be heard and disposed of on merits.
August 07, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.