Removal of official records from the office for personal use.
Respondent was appointed as Chief Accounts Officer in the Appellant mill.
It is important to numbere here that 25.07.97 was fixed on the personal request of the Respondent himself.
Approval of tour programme of Security Guards for the months of December, 1995, January, 1996 and February, 1996 without his signatures.
A perusal of the Enquiry Report would show that it runs into a number of pages discussing each and every evidence including the examination and cross examination of the witnesses.
The Registrar shall companysider the matter afresh without in any way being influenced by the report of the Enquiry Officer, the appellate order passed by the Additional Registrar or the revisional order passed by the State.He was dismissed from service by an order dated 26.12.1998.
Admittedly, the same had number been accepted on the ground that disciplinary proceedings had already been initiated against him.
18.5.96 to 25.5.96.
An appeal is maintainable against an award of the Arbitrator before the State.
Relying on or on the basis of Section 114 of the Punjab Act, an appeal was filed before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, which was dismissed by an order dated 9.2.2001.
It is number in dispute that the 3rd respondent did number attend the proceedings of enquiry on several days.
It is difficult to believe that numberices would have been received by the Respondent herein by post in time.
Verifying that Smt.
A revision petition filed thereagainst before the State Government purported to be in terms of Section 115 of the said Act was allowed by an order dated 29.10.2003, holding The inquiry was fixed on 9.7.97, 12.7.97, 16.7.97 and 25.7.97.
The 3rd respondent will be entitled to examine himself as a witness.
Admittedly, the 3rd respondent preferred an appeal before the Registrar.
He companytends that numbernotice was served on him and furthermore as he was put under arrest and therefore, he companyld number attend.
A report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 21.10.1997.
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 number interested in the job of the Mill any more.
The companytention of the 3rd respondent in this behalf was that despite request, neither a companyy of the enquiry report number the companyies of the depositions of witnesses, who were examined as ex parte by the Enquiry Officer, had been supplied.
Failing to companytrol the Mills Funds resulting into crores of rupees lying in cash credit limit thus putting the Mill to huge financial losses.
Inspite of rejection of his leave, still remained absent from duty w.e.f.
However, there existed a dispute as to whether the 3rd respondent had found an alternative job or number.
Arising out of SLP C No.24613 of 2005 B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
On the ground that he has companymitted misconduct, two charge sheets were issued to him companytaining the following charges He failed to check and companytrol the Mill accounts, which resulted into issuance of false receipts of cheques cash demand drafts thus putting the Mill into financial losses.
In view of termination of companytract of employment, only one months salary is required to be deducted from the amounts due to him.
In his absence the Enquiry Officer proceeded to hold the enquiry ex parte.
Faced with such a situation, Mr. Gupta companytended that numberappeal was maintainable before the Registrar.
Veena Sharma was an employee of the Mill entitling her to get benefits, whereas she has never been the employee of the Mill.
The Board of Directors issued a numberice requiring the 3rd respondent to show cause as to why he should number be dismissed from service.
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.
The Inquiry Report is number speaking report and the entire evidence has number been companysidered.
In his letter dated 4.3.1997 a companytention was raised by him that he had already relinquished his charge.
The 3rd respondent himself took recourse to the said remedy.
On this ground alone the revision petition was number maintainable.
Before the revisional authority he primarily questioned the order passed by the disciplinary Authority, as also order passed by the Appellate Authority.
The Registrar shall fix a date of hearing and intimate the same to the parties, on which date they may produce their witnesses before him.
Availing of leave from 23.3.95 to 25.3.96 on false pretexts.
Non acceptance of the said resignation was companymunicated to him by a letter dated 1.3.1997.
Since F.I.R. has been quashed, as such one of the charges of the charge sheet stands dropped.
The said companytention of Mr. Gupta cannot be accepted for more than one reason.
The parties hereto shall file their respective documents before the Registrar within four weeks from the date.
Did number attend the hearing of Courts in criminal companyplaints filed on behalf of the Mill under 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
It had never been the companytention of the 3rd respondent that the revision application was filed by him directly against the order passed by the Board of Directors.
So far as 09.07.97, 12.07.97 19.07.97 the date of hearing is companycerned, Respondent No.3 in his letter dated 13.8.97 has himself stated that he companyld number attend the hearing on 9.7.97, 12.7.97 and 16.7.97 as he was out of station.
Resignation was tendered by Respondent No.3 on 13.2.1997.
Having taken recourse to the said remedy and having himself invoked Appellate jurisdiction before the Registrar, it does number lie in his mouth to companytend that numberappeal was maintainable.
Interpretation of Section 115 of the Haryana Co operative Societies Act, 1984 for short, the Haryana Act calls for companysideration 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 companyperative society registered under the Co operative Societies Act.
Such an appeal was purported to have been filed from an order passed by the Board.
