Haryana State Cooperative Supply And Marketing Federation Limited And Others vs Rajesh Kumar And Others

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-5714-2023 (O&M)

Haryana State Cooperative Supply and
Marketing Fed. Ltd. & Ors. ... Petitioners

VS.

Rajesh Kumar & Ors. ... Respondents

1. Judgment reserved on 17.08.2026
2. Judgment pronounced on 04.11.2026
3. Judgment uploaded on 05.11.2026
4. Whether operative or full judgment Full
5. Delay in pronouncement of full judgment and reasons, if any NA

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Present: Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate and
Ms. Ayushi, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Madan Lal, Advocate for
for respondent No.1

Mr. Pankaj Middha, Addl. AG Haryana

Sandeep Moudgil, J.



(1). The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari
vide which the impugned order dated 11.04.2022 (Annexure P-14), passed by
the Additional Registrar-cum-Chief Auditor, Cooperative Societies, Haryana
(respondent No.2), whereby the inquiry report dated 04.08.2020 and the
consequential order of dismissal dated 23.07.2021 passed against respondent
No.1 have been set aside, with liberty to HAFED to initiate fresh disciplinary
proceedings in accordance with law, is sought to be quashed.
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.05 11:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-5714-2023 - 2 -





(2). The facts of the case are that respondent No.1, Rajesh Kumar, was
working as District Manager, Haryana State Cooperative Supply & Marketing
Federation (HAFED), Kaithal, from 28.03.2018 to 29.11.2018. During the
relevant period, certain irregularities relating to procurement, storage and
milling of paddy came to the notice of HAFED which led to initiation of
proceedings under FIR No.139 dated 27.03.2019 registered against him under
Sections 409, 420 and 120-B IPC and Sections 7 and 13(1)(a) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988.

(3). In the meantime, HAFED issued a charge-sheet dated 30.05.2019
(Annexure P4) under Rule 19 of the HAFED Common Cadre Rules, 1988 (in
short, the 1988 Rules) alleging that respondent No.1 had failed to comply with
directions issued by the Managing Director regarding defaulting rice mills,
including lodging of FIRs, filing of recovery proceedings, encashment of
FDRs/guarantees/cheques and taking possession of available stocks. He was
further charged with allotting excess paddy beyond the capacity of certain rice
mills in violation of the procurement policy and HAFED instructions and with
having acted in connivance with the rice millers, allegedly resulting in
misappropriation of Central Pool paddy stocks and loss of approximately Rs.16
crore to HAFED.

(4). The Managing Director, HAFED, thereafter appointed Shri R.P.
Bhasin, retired District and Sessions Judge, as the Inquiry Officer on
15.05.2020
11.03.2020. Respondent No.1 was asked to appear vide notices dated
and 06.07.2020, however, respondent No.1 did not appear before the Inquiry
Officer. The Inquiry Officer accordingly proceeded ex parte on 27.07.2020,
recorded the evidence of PW-1 Ramesh Kumar and PW-2 Manmeet Singh,
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.05 11:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-5714-2023 - 3 -




took on record the departmental documents and heard the Presenting Officer.
The Inquiry Officer thereafter submitted his report dated 04.08.2020 (Annexure
P8) holding the charges proved.

(5). HAFED thereafter issued a show-cause notice under Rule 19.2(g)
of the 1988 Rules on 05.10.2020 proposing the penalty of dismissal.
Respondent No.1 did not submit a reply thereto. The Board of Administrators,
HAFED, considered the matter and on 30.06.2021 (Annexure P10), respondent
No.1 was dismissed him from service as communicated on 23.07.2021.

(6). Aggrieved, respondent No.1 approached respondent No.2 by
filing a revision under Rule 21 of the 1988 Rules and vide impugned order
dated 11.04.2022 (Annexure P14), respondent No.2 accepted the revision on
the ground that the relevant documents had not been supplied despite the
requests dated 18.06.2019 and 20.12.2019 and that the reply dated 07.07.2020
(Annexures R-1/3, R-1/6 & R-1/7, respectively) of respondent No.1 had not
been properly considered in violation of the principles of natural justice. The
inquiry report dated 04.08.2020 and the dismissal order dated 23.07.2021 were
accordingly set aside, with liberty to HAFED to conduct a fresh inquiry in
accordance with law.

(7). Aggrieved by the said impugned order (Annexur P14) passed by
the revisional authority, the petitioner-HAFED is before this Court by way of
the present writ petition.

(8). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge-sheet
was duly served upon respondent No.1 and he was given adequate opportunity
to submit his reply and to inspect the official record. Despite repeated notices
issued by the Inquiry Officer, he did not participate in the inquiry. The Inquiry
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.05 11:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-5714-2023 - 4 -




Officer was, therefore, justified in proceeding ex parte. It is submitted that the
charges were thereafter established on the basis of departmental witnesses and
official documents. The allegations were serious and involved substantial
financial loss to HAFED and, therefore, the punishment of dismissal was fully
justified. According to the petitioner, respondent No.2 exceeded the scope of
revision by reassessing the evidence and interfering with a duly conducted
disciplinary inquiry.

(9). On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits
that the charge-sheet was not accompanied by the documents and statements of
witnesses on which the allegations were founded. Respondent No.1 specifically
requested the relevant documents vide representations dated 18.06.2019 and
20.12.2019 (Annexures R-1/3 & R-1/6, respectively) but no response was
furnished by HAFED. He was subsequently arrested in the criminal case FIR
No.139 dated 27.03.2019 arising out of the same allegations and remained in
custody. He submits that despite the non-supply of documents, he submitted his
reply to the charge-sheet on 07.07.2020 (Annexure R-1/7) and the Inquiry
Officer nevertheless proceeded ex parte and, most importantly, recorded a
finding that respondent No.1 had never submitted any reply to the charge-sheet.
The respondent submits that the inquiry was thus conducted in breach of
principles of natural justice and that the order of respondent No.2 merely
directed a fresh inquiry after providing a proper opportunity of defence.

(10). Heard learned counsel for the parties and the judgment was kept
reserved on 17.08.2026.

(11). The defence of respondent No.1 was that the charge-sheet was not
accompanied by the relevant documents and statements of witnesses. He
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.05 11:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-5714-2023 - 5 -




accordingly sought the same vide representations dated 18.06.2019 and
20.12.2019. The petitioner did not furnish any response to these
representations. It is, however, an admitted position from the record that
respondent No.1 submitted a reply to the charge-sheet on 07.07.2020
(Annexure R-1/7).

(12). The Inquiry Officer proceeded ex parte against respondent No.1
after he failed to appear despite notices. The Inquiry Officer thereafter
examined two witnesses and relied upon the documents produced by the
department. The charges were held to be proved, followed by the order of
dismissal.

(13). This Court finds no merit in the contention that the mere fact that
the inquiry proceeded ex parte would, by itself, render the proceedings invalid.
Where a delinquent employee, despite due notice, does not participate in the
inquiry, the Inquiry Officer can proceed ex parte. The real question, however, is
whether the charges were thereafter proved in accordance with law.

(14). The inquiry report proceeds on the categorical finding that
respondent No.1 had never submitted a reply to the charge-sheet. This finding
is difficult to sustain in view of the reply dated 07.07.2020 (Annexure R-1/7)
placed on record. The said reply was submitted before the inquiry proceedings
were concluded on 27.07.2020. The Inquiry Officer, therefore, could not have
proceeded on the basis that there was no reply and could not have drawn an
inference of admission merely from the alleged failure to submit one.

(15). More importantly, the charges against respondent No.1 were
serious in nature, including alleged connivance with rice millers and financial
loss of about Rs.16 crore. Such charges were required to be established from
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.05 11:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-5714-2023 - 6 -




the evidence led by the department. The charge-sheet itself could not be treated
as proof of the allegations.

(16). The evidence noticed in the inquiry report primarily consists of
the statements of PW-1 Ramesh Kumar and PW-2 Manmeet Singh and certain
official documents. PW-1 substantially affirmed the correctness of the charge-
sheet and the statement of allegations, while PW-2 adopted the evidence of
PW-1. The inquiry report, however, does not satisfactorily demonstrate,
particularly with regard to the allegations of connivance and the alleged loss of
Rs.16 crore and how the evidence specifically establishes the misconduct
attributable to respondent No.1.

(17). The fact that respondent No.1 had earlier sought the relevant
documents, coupled with the absence of any response to his representations
dated 18.06.2019 and 20.12.2019, also assumes significance. Even in an ex
parte inquiry, the department is required to follow a fair procedure and to
establish the charges on the basis of evidence.

(18). In these circumstances, this Court finds that the order of
respondent No.2 setting aside the earlier inquiry and permitting a fresh inquiry
does not suffer from any jurisdictional or legal infirmity warranting
interference. At the same time, this Court expresses no opinion on the
allegations against respondent No.1.

(19). Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner
i.e. HAFED, however, shall be at liberty to initiate fresh disciplinary
proceedings in accordance with the applicable Rules. If such proceedings are
initiated, respondent No.1 shall be supplied the relevant documents and
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.05 11:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-5714-2023 - 7 -




afforded reasonable opportunity to submit his defence and participate in the
inquiry in accordance with law.

(20). It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the
legality and fairness of the earlier disciplinary proceedings and shall not
prejudice either party in the fresh inquiry.

(21). The writ petition stands dismissed.

(22). Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.


04.11.2026
(Sandeep Moudgil)
V.Vishal

Judge
Yes/No
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? :
2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No

V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.05 11:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document