Navreet Singh And ANR. v. Punjab State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. And ANR.

Manoj Kumar 2017.04.28 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.8003 of 2016 #1#

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8003 of 2016 Date of Order: 27.4.2017 Navreet Singh and Anr.

....Petitioners

Versus

Pb. State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Board and Ors. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

Present:

Mr. Balram Singh, Advocate for Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Nitin Kaushal, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. Anant Kataria, DAG, Punjab.

JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) The petitioners, Navreet Singh and Baldev Raj Kochhar, are working with the respondent-Punjab State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd (for short "Markfed") as Salesman and Sr. Field Officer respectively.

Conclusion of disciplinary proceedings culminated into passing of an order dated 17.11.2015 whereby a recovery to the extent of 50% of the loss of Rs.1,58,65,875 was imposed upon them in equal shares. Both the petitioners had filed their statutory appeal before the Board of Directors of Markfed. Since the same was not being decided despite sufficient lapse of time, hence the present petition was filed seeking a direction to the Appellate Authority to dispose of the pending appeal in a time bound manner.

CWP No.8003 of 2016 #2# This Court vide order dated 27.5.2016 issued notice of motion with certain directions. On subsequent dates in spite of service, none had caused appearance on behalf of the Markfed. Accordingly, the Managing Director of the Markfed was directed to be present in Court vide order dated 06.3.2017. At the time of hearing today, Sh. Arshdeep Singh, MD Markfed is present in Court and has tendered unconditional apology for non-representation on behalf of the Markfed on the previous date of hearing.

Apology is accepted.

Learned counsel for the respondent states that the present writ petition has become infructuous as the Appellate Authority/Board of Directors had vide order dated 27.5.2016 disposed of the pending appeal of both the petitioners, while setting aside the order of Punishing Authority and remanded back the matter to the Punishing Authority for passing fresh order, in accordance with law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that no further adjudication is required in the present petition. Dismissed as having become infructuous.

April 27, 2017 (JASWANT SINGH) manoj JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No