C.W.P. No.16512 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.16512 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 20, 2009 Om Parkash and another .....PETITIONERS Versus State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.Arvind Rajotia, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Sushma Chopra, Addl.A.G.,Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr.Vijay Pal, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 5. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioners are working as Store Keeper and Salesman in District CONFED Offices, Hisar and Sirsa, respectively. They were served show cause notices for recovery of Rs.48,300/- each for less gain in wheat stocks during the period from August 1993 to December, 1993, as these officials gave less gain in wheat stocks as per gain norms fixed by Head Office. After providing an opportunity of hearing, the Managing Director, CONFED passed the impugned orders of recovery of Rs.48,300/- each against both the petitioners when they could not explain the reasons for giving of less gain in wheat stocks in terms of the gain norms fixed by the CONFED. The appeals filed by both the petitioners against the said order have also been dismissed. C.W.P. No.16512 of 2007 -2- Pursuant to notice of motion, written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents No.2 to 5 stating that the impugned orders were rightly passed after providing an opportunity of hearing to both the petitioners. During the course of hearing, it has not been disputed by the counsel for the petitioners that before passing the impugned orders of recoveries, proper opportunity of hearing was provided to them. However, learned counsel argued that the petitioners were not at fault if there was a less gain in weight in the wheat stocks as it all depends upon weather in a particular area. He submitted that it was not the charge that the petitioners had misappropriated the wheat stocks. He further submitted that it was also not the charge that the petitioners were in any way negligent in their duty. Therefore, merely because there was less gain in the wheat stocks, the petitioners cannot be punished. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 5 argued that the respondent-Federation has fixed the minimum gain to the weight of the wheat stocks by a Policy, which is applicable to all the employees, and according to the said standard fixed, every employee has to account for the stock. The petitioners have not challenged the said decision/guidelines being illegal and arbitrary. Since the impugned orders were passed after providing full opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, no interference is required in the impugned orders. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned orders, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Undisputedly, the impugned orders were passed after providing opportunity of hearing to the C.W.P. No.16512 of 2007 -3- petitioners and to lead evidence to prove that there was no less gain in wheat stocks, as stated by the respondents. Secondly, no arbitrary or mala fide has been alleged by the petitioner in passing the impugned orders. The only ground on which the petitioners want to get the said orders set aside is that the petitioners were not at fault if the gain in wheat stocks was not as per the standard prescribed by the respondent Federation. In my opinion, the respondents by a Policy decision have framed the guidelines for weighing the stock and taking account of the stock from the employees. In that Policy, they have laid down certain standard, fixing the minimum figure of weight gain in the wheat stocks. According to the said Policy, the petitioners did not account for the wheat stocks and some deficiency was found. According to the said deficiency, the liability was fixed. The petitioners have not challenged the said Policy/Guidelines issued by the respondent-Federation. Therefore, this Court cannot go into the reasonableness of the technical issue for which the guidelines were issued. In the facts and circumstances of the case, for what reason there was less gain in wheat stocks, cannot be gone into by this Court being disputed question of fact. Thus, I do not find any ground to exercise the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing the direction sought for in this petition. Dismissed. March 20, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE