HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.18819 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.07.2011 **** Mukand Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Anr. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. VK Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner, who joined the Food and Supplies Department, Punjab as a Sub Inspector, was due for retirement as Inspector Gr-I w.e.f. 30.06.2003. Three months’ before his retirement, the petitioner along with three others was served with a show cause notice dated 14.11.2002 alleging that all of them caused loss of Rs.2,92,754.50 paise while transferring the stock of the wheat for the crop year 1983-84 to the FCI. The petitioner submitted his reply and took a specific plea that the show cause notice has been served after a lapse of 17 years causing serious prejudice to him. Without specifically dealing with the said objection, the impugned order dated 14.03.2007 (Annexure P5) has been passed by the State CWP No.18819 of 2009.doc - 2 – Government imposing recovery of Rs.73,188.63 paise though he had meanwhile retired from service. (2). On the point of delay, para 5 of the reply/affidavit filed by the respondents, reads as follows:- “In reply to this para it is submitted that the position stands explained in Preliminary Submission No.1. So far as the service of show cause notice after the period of 17 years is concerned, it is submitted that the amount of quality cut was imposed on wheat when the total stocks of wheat were dispatched in the account of Central Pool i.e. Food Corporation of India and thereafter the delay was occurred due to adopting of official procedure. It is further submitted that as per the law, the State Govt. can recover the amount of loss from the guilty within 30 years. However, this para is denied.” (3). The plea taken by the respondents that the delay had occurred due to “adopting of official procedure”, is as vague as possible. The law is well settled that mere delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings may not be fatal but if it causes prejudice to an employee like denial of adequate defence to him, then the disciplinary authority is obligated to appropriately explain such delay. The petitioner also alleges discrimination as similarly situated officials are 2 CWP No.18819 of 2009.doc - 3 – said to have permitted to go scot-free. The fact that the petitioner has retired from service also requires a sympathetic consideration. (4). Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order dated 14.03.2007 (Annexure P5) with a direction to the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Food and Supplies and Consumer Affairs to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a speaking order with specific reference to the issues raised hereinabove, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (5). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 22.07.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge 3