Rajinder Singh vs Registrar Cooperative Societies Punjab And Others

CWP-21007-2023 (O&M)
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-21007-2023 (O&M)
Rajinder Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Registrar Cooperative Societies Punjab & others ...Respondents
Sr. Particulars Details
No.
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 21.09.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 30.10.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 30.10.2026
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced Full
or full judgment is pronounced
5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, N.A.
and reasons thereof
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. H.S.Bedi, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Siddharth Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Arun Gosain, (through V.C.) and
Mr. Ramandeep Sindh Sandhu, Advocates,
for respondents No.2 & 3.
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature
of certiorari for quashing the order dated 04.09.2023 (Annexure P-10),
passed by respondent No.3, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner
against the order dated 28.08.2023 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent
No.4 has not been accepted, by declining his request to take assistance of
any retired Punjab Government employee as his Defence Assistant.
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.10.30 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-21007-2023 (O&M)
(2)
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was
initially appointed as Dairy Helper-cum-Cleaner on compassionate basis by
respondent No.2 in the year 2009. His services were regularized in the year
2011 and he was thereafter posted as In-charge, Sadik Milk Chilling Centre.
A charge-sheet along with summary of charges dated 03.05.2023 (Annexure
P-1) was issued to the petitioner, to which he submitted his reply dated
07.06.2023. Subsequently, an Inquiry Officer was appointed, vide order
dated 23.06.2023, to inquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner.
3. During the course of the inquiry, the petitioner moved an
application dated 17.07.2023 (Annexure P-2) before the Inquiry Officer
seeking permission to avail the assistance of a retired Punjab Government
employee as his Defence Assistant while referring to Rule 8(8) of the Punjab
Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (for short, ‘the 1970
Rules’). The said application was opposed by the Milk Union, vide reply
dated 25.07.2023 (Annexure P-3), while relying upon Rule 33.4 of the
Cooperative Milk Producers Union Employees Service (Non-Common
Cadre) Rules, 1996 (for short, ‘the 1996 Rules’), to which the petitioner
submitted his response dated 07.08.2023 (Annexure P-4). However, the
Inquiry Officer, vide order dated 28.08.2023 (Annexure P-8), rejected the
request of the petitioner. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred
an appeal dated 02.09.2023 (Annexure P-9), which also came to be rejected
by respondent No.3, vide impugned order dated 04.09.2023 (Annexure P-
10). Hence, the present petition.
4. Short reply by way of an affidavit has been filed on behalf of
respondent No.1, whereas written statement on behalf of respondents No.2
and 3 has been filed. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.10.30 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-21007-2023 (O&M)
(3)
No.2 and 3, the stand taken is that the petitioner, being an employee of the
Milk Union, is not a Government employee and, therefore, cannot claim the
benefit of Rule 8(8) of the 1970 Rules so as to engage a retired Punjab
Government employee as his Defence Assistant.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
could not have been denied the assistance of a retired Punjab Government
employee, particularly when Rule 33.4 of the 1996 Rules expressly makes
the provisions of the 1970 Rules applicable to the employees of the Milk
Union in matters relating to discipline, punishment and appeal. It is further
submitted that Rule 33.4 does not impose any restriction that the Defence
Assistant must necessarily be an employee serving or retired of the Milk
Union itself. Learned counsel further submits that no co-employee of the
petitioner is likely to come forward to assist him against the management,
apprehending adverse consequences in his own service. It is, thus, contended
that the rejection of the petitioner's request amounts to denial of the
procedural safeguards.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and
3 submits that the request of the petitioner has rightly been not accepted, as
the Milkfed and its affiliated Milk Unions are autonomous/cooperative
entities and their employees are not Government employees. It is, therefore,
contended that Rule 8(8) of the 1970 Rules, which uses the expression
‘Government employee’ and permits such employee to take assistance of a
Government employee or a retired Government employee, cannot be
invoked by the petitioner.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record.
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.10.30 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-21007-2023 (O&M)
(4)
8. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to reproduce the
relevant provisions. Rule 33.4 of the 1996 Rules and Rule 8(8) of the 1970
Rules read as under:
The Cooperative Milk Producers Union Employees Service (Non-
Common Cadre) Rules, 1996 :
33. Procedure of Enquiry and Punishment for Major
Misconducts –
33.1 to 33.3 xx xx xx
33.4 In the matter of discipline, punishment and appeal, the
Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 as
amended from time to time shall apply to the employees
covered under these rules. However, inquiring authority to be
appointed for holding inquiry shall include retired judicial
officers in addition to retired Punjab Government Officers."
The Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 :
8. Procedure for imposing major penalties –
(1) to (7) xx xx xx
(8) The Government employee may take the assistance of any
other Government employee (or a retired government employee) to
present the case on his behalf, but may not engage a legal
practitioner, or the punishing authority having regard to the
circumstances of the case, so permits."
9. The sole question that arises for consideration in the present
petition is whether an employee of the Milk Union, to whom the provisions
of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 have
been made applicable by virtue of Rule 33.4 of the Cooperative Milk
Producers Union Employees Service (Non-Common Cadre) Rules, 1996,
can be denied the assistance of a retired Punjab Government employee as a
Defence Assistant in departmental proceedings or not ?
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.10.30 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-21007-2023 (O&M)
(5)
10. A bare perusal of Rule 33.4 of the 1996 Rules reveals that the
rule-making authority has expressly provided for the applicability of the
Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, as amended
from time to time, to the employees governed by the 1996 Rules in matters
relating to discipline, punishment and appeal. The language of the said
provision does not indicate that the applicability of the 1970 Rules is
confined to any particular provision thereof or that any procedural safeguard
available under the said Rules has been expressly excluded in respect of the
employees of the Milk Union. It is also significant that Rule 33.4 of the
1996 Rules specifically provides that the competent authority may appoint
retired judicial officers in addition to retired Punjab Government Officers as
inquiring authority. However, no express restriction is discernible from the
said Rule prohibiting an employee of the Milk Union from seeking the
assistance of a serving or retired Punjab Government employee as his
Defence Assistant. The fact that the governing service rules contemplate the
appointment of retired Punjab Government Officers as Inquiry Officers
lends further support to the claim of the petitioner and the requirement of
interpreting the applicable procedural provisions in a manner that ensures a
fair opportunity of defence to the delinquent employees. The expression
‘Government employee’ occurring in Rule 8(8) of the 1970 Rules cannot be
construed in isolation, divorced from the express incorporation of the said
Rules under Rule 33.4 of the 1996 Rules. Once the provisions of the 1970
Rules have been made applicable to the employees of the Milk Union in
matters relating to discipline, punishment and appeal, the benefit of the
procedural safeguards contained therein cannot be denied merely on the
ground that the 1996 Rules do not independently provide for the engagement
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.10.30 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-21007-2023 (O&M)
(6)
of a retired Punjab Government employee as a Defence Assistant. Such an
interpretation would frustrate the object and purpose of incorporating the
1970 Rules into the service framework governing the employees of the Milk
Union.
11. The aforesaid discussion assumes greater significance in the
facts of the present case, wherein the petitioner, who belongs to Class-IV
service and was appointed as a Dairy Helper-cum-Cleaner, seeks the
assistance of a Defence Assistant of his choice to defend himself in the
departmental proceedings. Having regard to the nature of his employment
and the possibility that he may not be adequately conversant with the
technicalities of departmental inquiries and the applicable procedural
requirements, denial of reasonable assistance may materially prejudice his
right to defence. This assumes particular significance when the governing
service rules themselves permit the appointment of a retired Punjab
Government Officer as an Inquiry Officer. In such circumstances, the
principles of natural justice and procedural fairness require that the
petitioner's request for assistance from a retired Punjab Government
employee be considered in accordance with the applicable rules and the
principles of fairness. In the present case, the impugned orders do not
disclose any legally sustainable justification for declining the petitioner's
request, except his status as an employee of the Milk Union. Such a
consideration, by itself, cannot constitute a sufficient ground for denying the
requested assistance, particularly when the request is otherwise permissible
under the applicable rules.
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.10.30 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-21007-2023 (O&M)
(7)
12. In the present case, the petitioner’s request for assistance of a
retired Punjab Government employee as his Defence Assistant was rejected
by the Inquiry Officer, vide order dated 28.08.2023 (Annexure P-8), and the
appeal against the said order was also not accepted by respondent No.3, vide
order dated 04.09.2023 (Annexure P-10). The principal ground for declining
the request was that the petitioner is an employee of the Milk Union and not
a Government employee. However, for the reasons recorded hereinabove,
such distinction, by itself, cannot justify denial of the assistance sought,
particularly when Rule 33.4 of the 1996 Rules expressly incorporates the
provisions of the 1970 Rules governing disciplinary proceedings. The
request was, therefore, required to be considered in the light of the
applicable Rules and the principles of natural justice, ensuring a fair
opportunity to defend the charges. The petitioner does not claim
Government employee status for all purposes, but seeks only a procedural
safeguard in disciplinary proceedings governed by the Rules made
applicable to his service. Rule 33.4 must, therefore, be interpreted to give
meaningful effect to such incorporation. Rationale for providing such
assistance is found in the fact that workmen and lower grade employees or
less qualified persons may lack familiarity with legal procedures and service
rules, especially where the employer is represented by a legally trained
Presenting Officer.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned order dated 04.09.2023 (Annexure P-
10), passed by respondent No.3, and the order dated 28.08.2023 (Annexure
P-8), passed by the Inquiry Officer, cannot be sustained to the extent that the
petitioner’s request has been rejected solely on the ground that he is not a
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.10.30 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-21007-2023 (O&M)
(8)
Government employee. Such an approach fails to give due effect to the
express incorporation of the 1970 Rules by virtue of Rule 33.4 of the 1996
Rules and disregards the requirement of affording the petitioner a fair and
reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the departmental proceedings.
14. Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 04.09.2023 (Annexure P-10), passed by respondent
No.3, and the order dated 28.08.2023 (Annexure P-8), passed by the Inquiry
Officer, are hereby set aside to the extent indicated hereinabove. The
petitioner shall be permitted to avail the assistance of a serving or retired
Punjab Government employee as his Defence Assistant, subject to the
proposed Defence Assistant satisfying the conditions prescribed under the
1970 Rules. The Inquiry Officer shall proceed with the disciplinary inquiry
from the stage at which it stood when the petitioner's request for assistance
of a Defence Assistant was declined.
15. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are
confined to the question of the petitioner's entitlement to assistance in the
departmental inquiry only and shall not be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the charges levelled against him. The departmental
proceedings shall proceed in accordance with law, after ensuring compliance
with the applicable procedural safeguards.
16. The present petition is, accordingly, allowed in the above terms.
30.10.2026 (NAMIT KUMAR)
Vimal/mkkoundal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.10.30 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document