IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17173 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision:18.04.2011 Amrik Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. K.S.Sivia, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. There is no representation for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present and I have proceeded to examine the case on the basis of the records available and with the assistance of the State counsel. 2. The petitioner had come on challenge to a departmental proceedings initiated by levying a charge-sheet for loss of wheat alleged to have been caused by the petitioner. The petitioner had challenged the competency of the respondent to initiate action but on an objection entered by the respondent that the writ petition itself was premature and Civil Writ Petition No.17173 of 1989 (O&M) - 2 - that he had sought an intervention of Court even before the enquiry had been completed, this Court had passed an order on 20.02.1990 permitting the enquiry proceedings to continue and had also granted liberty to the respondent to pass an appropriate order. The Division Bench, however, had ruled that in the event of the order being adverse to the petitioner, it would not be given effect without the permission of the Court. The proceedings had been completed and the result of the enquiry before the departmental proceedings was that there had been a loss to the extent of Rs.16,376.92 being the value of wheat by the petitioner's negligent conduct. The result of the enquiry was informed to the Court and an application had been moved in CM No.8852 of 1991 to bring on record the Enquiry Officer's report and the finding regarding the loss. The Court had recorded a statement from the petitioner that he would have no objection to the amount being recovered from the terminal benefits if he retired before the disposal of the writ petition or if he failed before the authorities in appeal. 3. The petitioner is not before me to challenge the competence of the officer who had constituted the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. If the departmental enquiry ultimately had yielded to a finding of guilt of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot have any remedy in this writ petition without challenging the findings by the disciplinary authority. Although the petitioner had given a statement that he would have no objection if the money is withdrawn from him, he has failed to assail the report rendered in the departmental proceedings. The order passed by the Director, Food and Supplies on 10.12.1990 has stood on Civil Writ Petition No.17173 of 1989 (O&M) - 3 - and it is not brought out anywhere that this order is not rendered properly or it is vitiated in any manner. 4. Having regard to the subsequent event of the order passed by the Director, Food and Supplies on 10.12.1990, the relief in the petition challenging the enquiry cannot survive favourable consideration. The order dated 10.12.1990 stands and the authorities shall be at liberty to recover the same with interest at 12% in the manner provided by this Court in its order dated 16.03.1992. 5. The writ petition is dismissed and the respondents shall be liberty to work out the rights in the manner provided above. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 18.04.2011 sanjeev