C.W.P. No. 16019 of 1994 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 16019 of 1994 DATE OF DECISION: 12.08.2011 Jabarjang Singh ..........Petitioner Versus Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers ..........Respondents Federation Ltd., Chandigarh through its Managing Director and another BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Ms. Savita Tanwar, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing of impugned order dated 20.4.1990 passed by Managing Director, Milk Union, Faridkot, vide which two annual increments of the petitioner have been stopped with cumulative effect. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no show cause notice was issued before passing of the impugned order and the inquiry was not conducted in a fair manner. Learned counsel further submits that the amount in dispute was deposited by the petitioner and co-accused has already died during the pendency of the proceedings and moreover the amount deposited by the petitioner was subsequently refunded by the society. Learned counsel also submits that there was no financial loss to the society as the purchasers had not deposited the amount but ultimately they deposited the price of the goods with respondents and the major C.W.P. No. 16019 of 1994 (2) punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. The mala fide action of the respondents is clear from the fact that the petitioner was not even paid subsistence allowance which was subsequently paid under the order of the Labour Court. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the impugned order as well as other documents available on file. The petitioner was working as Clerk with the respondent- Society. The multi purpose Cooperative Societies used to purchase various items from respondent No.2 i.e. Faridkot District Cooperative Milk Producers Union. The Multi-purpose Cooperative Societies, Dheri, had purchased three tins of ghee amounting to ` 2415/ but did not pay the price for the same. Similarly Multi-purpose Cooperative Society Rori Kapura had purchased two tins of ghee for ` 1615/- and three tins for ` 2460/-. Multi purpose Cooperative Soceity, Sukhna Abla had purchased 24 bags of cattled feed for ` 2304/-. This multi purpose Cooperative society did not pay the price of the goods. Accordingly, the petitioner was charge sheeted for the negligence vide charge sheet dated 7.9.1989 and was placed under suspension. The allegations against the petitioner was that he received value of the goods from the Purchaser-Societies but the amount was not deposited. The inquiry was conducted against the petitioner. The charges for negligence and misappropriation of the funds were not proved against the petitioner as Ajmer Singh, who was incharge at that time died during the pendency of the proceedings and moreover an amount of ` 7962/- was deposited by the petitioner and he admitted his negligence also. By taking a lenient view two annual increments with cumulative effect were ordered to be stopped and the petitioner was reinstated in service. The Managing Director vide order dated 20.4.1990 reinstated the petitioner and ordered C.W.P. No. 16019 of 1994 (3) for payment of subsistence allowance for the period for which he remained under suspension. The only grouse of the petitioner is that the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect is disproportionate and arbitrary to the misconduct of the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing or any notice before imposition of the punishment has been issued is contrary to Rules. The petitioner himself admitted his negligence and the amount in dispute was also deposited by him, which in itself shows that there was lapse on the part of the petitioner. Although subsequently the amount deposited by the petitioner was refunded as is clear from the order dated 20.4.1990 but by taking a lenient view the petitioner was reinstated in service and two annual increments with cumulative effect were ordered to be stopped. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances mentioned above and also the fact that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is not disproportionate as the petitioner had admitted his negligence, there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order and the petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. August 12, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE