Civil Writ Petition No. 12392 of 2003 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 12392 of 2003 Date of Decision: 10.11.2010 Capt. (Dr.) S.N. Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.C. Bhatia, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The petitioner, on 30.6.2003, retired as Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Haryana. It is stated that due to dereliction in the performance of duties, 5000 doses of different semen, so imported, were found waste and dead. Since the semen was imported for improving the breed of Cow in the State of Haryana, the programme initiated by the department, to improve the quality of livestock, suffered. Time is the essence for executing the plan. Even though, lateron, in another deal, the semen were imported. The programme initiated by the Department of Animal Husbandry suffered and delay was caused as the petitioner, earlier, had not taken necessary precautions as Head of Department, for import of semen in the year 1991. The petitioner had Civil Writ Petition No. 12392 of 2003 2 visited Australia from 11.12.1991 to 16.12.1991. Letter of Credit was opened on 1.1.1992 and the semen were packed in the Australia on 17.1.1992. The petitioner has assailed the findings of the Enquiry Officer, who held him guilty of the charges. The Enquiry Report dated 2.9.1996 is annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P3. A perusal of the charges reveal that the petitioner had visited Karnal, on arrival of the semen on 11.2.1992. He gave no instructions regarding microscopic examination of the semen on 15.2.1992. The charge further stated that the petitioner was directly appointed for the purchase of semen and he had also undertaken the visit to Australia. On the basis of the Enquiry Report dated 2.9.1996 (Annexure P3), a Show Cause Notice was served upon the petitioner vide memo No. 5899-A.H-1-2001/8656 dated 29.5.2002. Reply filed by the petitioner was not found satisfactory and the Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary, Haryana Government, Department of Animal Husbandry, vide his order dated 9.10.1992 (Annexure P5) ordered that 33.3% cut in the pension of the petitioner be imposed to recover 1/3rd of the loss of ` 6,81,118/-. This cut in the pension was also approved by the Haryana Public Service Commission, vide its letter No. Dis-54/2002/21187 dated 27.9.2002. Having assailed the order (Annexure P5), whereby the cut, in the pension of the petitioner, was imposed, Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in Dr. Ishar Singh v. State of Punjab 1994(3) Recent Service Judgment 543 to contend that the cut in pension can only be imposed if by the act of omission or commission, on the part of Civil Writ Petition No. 12392 of 2003 3 the petitioner, had caused pecuniary loss to the Government. Mr. Ahuja has referred to the following specific averments made in the writ petition:- “...7. That the petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the Show Cause Notice on 19.6.2002 disputing the findings of the Enquiry Officer by clearly stating therein that the documentary evidence exculpating him were totally and illegally ignored by the Enquiry Officer and further, the charges have not been proved against him and moreover, the department had not suffered any loss as the Australian Company had supplied 5000 more doses of semen free of cost in lieu of the aforesaid dead semen on the basis of which even the criminal proceedings initiated by the Government through Vigilance Department against one Col. Bir Singh, the Director of Hindustan Livestock Sales Corporation were dropped and as such, no loss having been suffered by the department, the departmental enquiry proceedings against him for imposition of cut in his pension had become redundant. A copy of this reply is attached herewith as Annexure P4...”. Learned counsel for the respondents, referring to the written statement, has submitted that subsequently the State of Haryana had placed an order of another 6000 doses of semen and because of placing Civil Writ Petition No. 12392 of 2003 4 of fresh order, 5000 doses of semen were supplied free of costs as a matter of goodwill. Therefore, the subsequent transaction, being an independent, has no bearing qua the loss caused at the instance of the petitioner. Mr. Ahuja has submitted that the Memo of Understanding was arrived with the Australian Government and subsequently 5000 doses of semen were supplied only to make the earlier loss good. It is stated that the petitioner was instrumental in signing of the Memo of Understanding to this effect. Learned counsel for the respondents has denied this fact. Thus, these are disputed questions of fact. This Court is conscious of the fact that while exercising its writ jurisdiction, in the matter of punishment/penalty, it cannot act as a Court of Appeal and re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence is not permissible. Furthermore, it is an admitted fact that the loss, caused by the petitioner, has been made good and the pension has now been restored and the petitioner is getting his full pension after the loss has been made good. Since it is a categoric stand of the State Government that the loss has not been made good and subsequent supply of 5000 doses of semen was dependent upon placing of the fresh order of 6000 doses of semen, this Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge November 10, 2010 “DK”