CWP No.3185 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: CWP No.3185 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: March 19, 2009 DR. S.B. UPADHYAY ...PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR. PRESENT: MR. B.K. SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2. MR. G.S. BAL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order (Annexure P-4) dated 6.12.2006, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') vide which the petitioner has been held liable to make good the loss for a laptop and has accordingly been directed to pay an amount of Rs.79,638/-. The petitioner was working as Assistant Director in Central Forensic Laboratory, Sector 36, Chandigarh. He was given a laptop by the Department. On 6.1.2000, the petitioner attended the office as usual and had gone out of his room to attend a lecture in the conference room. When he returned back at 11.00 a.m., he found that the room was open and the laptop was missing. The petitioner was proceeded against for the loss of the laptop. The petitioner had reported the mater with regard to loss of CWP No.3185 of 2008 -2- laptop. He admitted that he had given a laptop by the Department, however, he accepts the loss to a theft having been taken place. As the loss of laptop was established, therefore, the petitioner was held liable to pay the depreciated amount of the lap amounting to Rs.79,638/- The petitioner had also lost the internet modem/card. The petitioner challenged the order before the Tribunal and his Original Application has been dismissed vide the impugned order. Counsel for the petitioner Mr. B.K. Sharma states that the petitioner is ready and willing to make good the loss of the laptop by giving a new laptop to the Department within a period of 2 months from today. He further states that the amount recovery from the petitioner be refunded back to him. The offer of the counsel for the petitioner is opposed by Mr. G.S. Bal, counsel for respondent No.3. He states that the petitioner should be asked to give a better model of the laptop. A perusal of the facts of this case shows that the petitioner had attend his office on 6.1.2000 at 9.15 A.M. and had to immediately come to attend a lecture in the conference room on the ground floor. Before going to the conference room he had bolted the room from outside. However, when he came back, the theft had taken place and the laptop was missing. Although there has been slight dereliction on part of the petitioner in not keeping the laptop fully secure, nevertheless, there is ample security in the Forensic Science Laboratory to ensure that no theft takes place. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met adequately if the petitioner is asked to give a new laptop to the Department. We accept the offer made by the petitioner and accordingly direct him to make the loss good by giving laptop ACER N-270 within a CWP No.3185 of 2008 -3- period of 2 months from today. After the new laptop is given to the Department, the amount which has been already recovered from the petitioner shall be refunded back to him. Writ petition disposed of. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE March 19, 2009 (NIRMALJIT KAUR) Gulati JUDGE