Punjab & Haryana HC: Dismissal of Co-op Society Employee for Embezzlement Upheld, Plea Against Enquiry Proceedings Barred by Constructive Res Judicata

Case Name: Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.
Date of Judgment: January 14, 2020
Citation: LPA No. 1106 of 2019 (O&M)
Bench: Hon’ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Ravi Shanker Jha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Palli

Held: The High Court dismissed the intra-court appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent and upheld the order of the learned Single Judge which had dismissed the writ petition challenging dismissal from service. It was held that the appellant was estopped by the principle of constructive res judicata from re-agitating the validity of the enquiry proceedings, as the earlier writ petition (CWP No. 12530 of 2011) filed by the Society had already resulted in a finding that the dismissal was vitiated only for non-compliance with Rule 14(3)(v) and (vi) of the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Service Rules, 1997, and that from that stage the disciplinary authority could proceed further. Since the enquiry report itself was not set aside and was treated as valid in earlier proceedings, the appellant could not question its validity again.

Summary: The appellant, employed as Peon-cum-Chowkidar in Jaitu Multipurpose Cooperative Society since 1995, was temporarily given charge of a salesman. On reinstatement of the original salesman, he failed to hand over charge and was suspended in December 2009. After departmental enquiry, he was found guilty of embezzling ₹6.41 lakhs and dismissed in March 2010. His appeal was allowed, but the Society’s revision failed, leading it to approach the High Court. A Coordinate Bench in August 2012 set aside the dismissal for non-compliance with Rule 14(3)(v) and (vi), which required supply of enquiry report and notice of proposed punishment, but remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority to proceed from that stage. Subsequently, the appellant was again dismissed after being supplied with the enquiry report and show cause notice. His appeals and revisions were dismissed, and his writ petition challenging dismissal was rejected by the Single Judge. In LPA, he argued that no proper enquiry was conducted, chargesheet not served, and witnesses not cross-examined. The Division Bench rejected these arguments, holding that enquiry validity had already been impliedly affirmed in earlier writ proceedings, and the appellant could not reopen the issue.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the dismissal of the appellant from service for embezzlement, and upheld the Single Judge’s reasoning that the plea against the enquiry proceedings was barred by constructive res judicata.