IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2811 of 2009 Date of Decision: February 24, 2009 Bant Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Food Corporation of India & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. B.R. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This civil writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India prays for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing Order dated 18/29.12.1999 (Annexure P-8) whereunder penalty of reduction in Time Scale of Pay by one stage for a period of one year with the stipulation that earning increments would be started after expiry of penalty period from the reduced stage of pay, has been imposed. Subsequently, the petitioner carried an appeal and revision which orders dated 23/26.7.2004 (Annexure P-10) and 18.1.2008 (Annexure P-12) have also been challenged. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in brief, states that the petitioner was transferred CWP No.2811 of 2009 [2] out of Patiala on 22.3.1994. Rice was despatched to Hubli in Karnataka on 29/30.3.1994. On receipt of Rice at Hubli, it was found that Rice contained excessive percentage of discolouration, broken grain, loose bran and it was dull in appearance. The personnel at the destination i.e. consignee made a complaint. An opportunity was given for joint inspection by the persons who had despatched the Rice i.e. at Patiala. None however availed of joint inspection opportunity. Be that as it may, the Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner essentially on the ground that he stood transferred before the date of despatch. The Disciplinary Authority differed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, however, after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, so that the petitioner could persuade the Disciplinary Authority that findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in his favour are correct. Be that as it may, for reasons recorded in the order, the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty on the petitioner as given out above. Appeal and review filed by the petitioner have also been dismissed. It has been projected on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was never given an opportunity for joint inspection. On a specific query of the Court to the learned counsel to show CWP No.2811 of 2009 [3] the ground taken in this regard, learned counsel has been unable to point out any specific ground that had been taken in this regard. Rather, the ground taken is that the petitioner having been transferred, was not required to be invited for joint inspection. The finding recorded by the authorities is to the effect that the petitioner was given opportunity to inspect for joint inspection. I have also considered the fact that without doubt, the petitioner alongwith others was incharge of maintaining grain at Patiala which was found deficient in quality. There is gap of just about 7/8 days in the date of transfer of the petitioner and the despatch of rice to Hubli. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any defect in decision making process. Decision itself is sought to be challenged. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petition may be dismissed as withdrawn. Dismissed as withdrawn. (AJAI LAMBA) February 24, 2009 JUDGE avin