CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12934 OF 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: February 27th, 2009. Parties Name Charan Singh Saini ...PETITIONER VERSUS State of Punjab and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH PRESENT: Mr. S.K.Rattan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Madhu Dayal, Addl. A.G., Punjab; Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 and 4. Mr. Raman Walia , Advocate, for respondent No. 4. JASBIR SINGH, J. Judgment. This writ petition has been filed in public interest. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent No. 5, who at the relevant time was posted as Manager (Stores) in Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh (in short the Corporation), by creating false emergency and misleading the higher authorities, got sanctioned and placed orders for the purchase of 1,34,000 wooden crates in the year 1999. It is alleged that sub- standard material (crates) were accepted, which has resulted in a loss to the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12934 OF 2007 -2- tune of Rs. 71,06,500/- to the Corporation. In this writ petition, it has been prayed that enquiry be got conducted against respondent No. 5 through CBI and further that embezzled amount be recovered from him. To support his contention, petitioner has placed reliance upon an enquiry conducted by Shri Y.S.Ratra, the then Financial Commissioner (Development), State of Punjab, in the month of December, 1999, wherein a finding was recorded that sub-standard material has been purchased. Petitioner has further stated that respondent No. 5 was placed under suspension and a charge-sheet to impose a major penalty was also issued to him. Subsequently, no action was taken against him for reasons best known to the authorities. Instead respondent No. 5 was reinstated in service. It is the accusation of the petitioner that by using his political influence, respondent No. 5 got conducted a second departmental enquiry, in which he was exonerated in a very arbitrary manner. When representations made by the petitioner for action against respondent No. 5 failed to yield any result, he was left with no alternative except to file this writ petition in this Court. Upon notice, separate replies have been filed – one by respondents No. 1 and 2, another by respondents No. 3 and 4 and third by respondent No. 5. In their replies, the respondents have justified purchase of wooden crates in question. It has further been stated that on account of supply of material, which was not as per specification, quality cut was imposed upon the supplier/ contractor to the tune of Rs. 71,00,000/-, out of which an amount of Rs. 63,57,025/- has already been recovered. It was further stated that after a preliminary enquiry conducted by a senior officer, disciplinary proceedings against No. 5 were started. He was charge-sheeted. However, the Enquiry Officer exonerated him as the charges were not CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12934 OF 2007 -3- proved. When this matter came up for hearing before this Court on November 12, 2008, following order was passed: “The preliminary inquiry as also the departmental inquiry conducted by the Ware Housing Corporation showed that the Corporation has suffered a loss of nearly Rs. 71,00,000(Seventy (one)Lacs) in connection with the purchase of sub-standard wooden crates. The departmental inquiry conducted against respondent No. 5, however, exonerated him of all the charges. All the same, the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of censure upon him. It is submitted by counsel appearing for the Corporation that out of the total amount of Rs.71,00,000/- nearly Rs. 63,00,000/- have already been recovered from the suppliers concerned. A sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Eight Lacs) however remains to be recovered. The question that arises for consideration in this public interest litigation is whether any one responsible for the loss suffered by the Corporation has been identified and proceeded against. If respondent No. 5 was not the person responsible for causing the loss whether the Corporation has identified any other official who was responsible for the same. Learned counsel for the Corporation was unable to explain as to why the amount payable to the suppliers was released in their favour and if the crates were found to be defective. In case a wrong certificate had been issued by the persons who received the crates, why no action has been taken against the said officials, remains unanswered. Learned counsel requests for a CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12934 OF 2007 -4- short adjournment to take further instructions in the matter and to make further submissions. Post again on December 03, 2008.” In response to order passed by us, as referred to above, Shri A.D.S.Sukhija, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 and 4 has filed an additional affidavit of Shri Raman Vinayak, Manager, Finance and Accounts, Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh. Para No. 2 of the above said affidavit reads as under: “That before explaining the entire position in detail, it is submitted that no money remains to be recovered in this case and the Corporation has recovered the entire amount of Rs. 75,09,654/- which was fixed as quality cut to be imposed on the supply of wooden crates to the Corporation for the Kharif season, 1999. Earlier, in the reply filed on behalf of the Corporation, it was mentioned that an amount of Rs. 63,57,025/- had only been recovered out of the quality cut assessed. However, the said amount was mentioned in the reply as proper facts and figures were not supplied by the Accounts department, at that time, due to non-availability of the records. Now the accounts have been again examined under the supervision of the deponent and it has been discovered that various amounts already in possession of the Corporation were lying under different heads and had not been merged into the account for deduction of the Quality Cut. The letter dated 22.7.2003 written by the then Managing Director of the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12934 OF 2007 -5- Corporation had already shown that the entire amount of quality cut had already been recovered but somehow the amounts kept lying under different heads which caused the mistake in the amount depicted as recovered, while filing the earlier reply.” To support above assertion, a statement of accounts Annexure R3/1 has been placed on record. It has further been stated that departmental proceedings were initiated against as many as 74 employees of the Corporation. After regular enquiry, charges were dropped against respondent No. 5, N.C. Rana and Kartar Singh, the then District Managers (both have since retired). Details of all the employees have been furnished with the additional affidavit vide Annexure R3/3. Enquiry proceedings against N.C.Rana, Kartar Singh and Tarlochan Singh were filed vide orders dated November 12, 2002, July 16, 2002 and again July 16, 2002, respectively. Shri S.S.Walia has died during pendency of enquiry. One Jitender Kumar was exonerated of the charges vide order dated September 9, 2002. To other employees, punishment of censure was awarded. Counsel for the parties heard. Delivery of sub-standard material is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that when the true facts were discovered, quality cut was imposed upon the contractors and by now an amount of Rs. 71,00,000/- stands recovered. Departmental disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the erring officials and by taking note of roll played by them in the entire process of purchase, punishment of censure was awarded to some of them way back in the years 2002 and 2003. Respondent No. 5 was exonerated during regular departmental enquiry. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12934 OF 2007 -6- show us that any favour was shown in exonerating respondent No. 5 during the above said enquiry. In the affidavit, filed earlier by respondents No. 3 and 4 and the additional affidavit, now filed, it has specifically been stated that towards quality cut, entire amount stood realised from the contractor and as per negligence shown by the officers, who were involved in the process of purchase, punishment of censure was awarded to them. It is not a case where authorities were not alive to the situation and have failed to take action against the officials. On receipt of sub-standard material, fact finding enquiry was instituted and thereafter against all the officers concerned, regular departmental enquiries were instituted and on getting reports of the Enquiry Officers, the competent authority passed appropriate order as per proved fact on record against all the officers concerned. Respondent No. 5 was exonerated. In view of facts, mentioned above, we are of the opinion that at the instance of the petitioner, who is also a retired employee of the Corporation and who is alleged to be setting his personal score by filing this writ petition, no interference is warranted by this Court. Dismissed . No order as to costs. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge ( T. S. Thakur ) February 27th , 2009. Chief Justice DKC