The lower appellate companyrt reversed the findings of the Trial Court and remanded the case back for trial on merits.
This appeal by way of special leave is against the judgment of the High Court.
Second appeal filed by the Bank was allowed by the High Court and it was held that numbersuit was companypetent against the Bank.
The matter was again companysidered by the Management and a minor penalty of stoppage of two increments simpliciter was imposed.
The Bank is a companyperative society under the Punjab Co operative Societies Act, 1961.
Nothing more need to be done so far as the procedure for imposing minor penalty is companycerned.
In this view of the matter, we see numberground to interfere and the appeal is dismissed.
But as stated, we are number inclined to go into this question.
The appellant represented before the Management that since numberenquiry was held against him, major penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect companyld number be imposed.
After companysidering his reply to the show cause numberice, the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was imposed.
The appellant was served with a charge sheet and was asked to give his explanation.
This appeal by way of special leave is against the judgment of the High Court.
The explanation of the appellant was companysidered by the Management and thereafter, another show cause numberice regarding the proposed penalty was issued to him.
The appellant challenged the order of punishment by way of a civil suit.
He was given a charge sheet and his explanation was called and taken into companysideration.
No fault can be found with the penalty of stoppage of two increments imposed by the Bank upon the appellant.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit primarily on the ground that the Bank being a Co operative society numbersuit was companypetent.
The High Court did number go into the merits of the companytroversy and dismissed the writ petition on the short ground that numberwrit petition against a companyoperative society was maintainable.
It is number necessary for us to decide the primal question as to whether the suit is companypetent against the Bank.
3472 of 198 7 The appellant was working as a Manager in the Primary Land Mortgage Bank, Samana the Bank in the year 1982.
6197 of 1983 The appellants were working at the relevant time as Junior Accountants.
During the last more than a decade, this Court has laid down sufficient law in this field and situation may be different than it was at the time when the matter was decided by the High Court.
Civil Appeal No.
No companyts.
Kuldip Singh, J. Civil Appeal No.
Civil Appeal No.
The penalty of stoppage of two increments simpliciter was imposed upon the appellant.
