HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.3728 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.01.2011 **** Subash Chand Jain . . . . Petitioner VS. Food Corporation of India & Ors. . . . . 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. Raj Paul Kansal, Advocate for the petitioner **** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 05.12.2008, 05.12.2008, 3.12.2008, 17.10.2008, 5.12.2008, 31.10.2008 (Annexures P1 to P6, respectively) whereby his review applications in different disciplinary actions taken by the competent authority have been dismissed by the Chairman/Managing Director of the respondent- Corporation. The petitioner also seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to release the arrears of his Gratuity and Leave Encashment as admissible to him under the Rules. (2). In exordium, the facts of the case are that the petitioner retired from the post of Assistant Manager (Depot) from the respondent-Corporation w.e.f. 31.12.2004 on attaining CWP No.3728 of 2010.doc - 2 – the age of superannuation. While in service, multiple disciplinary actions were initiated against the petitioner for his failure to discharge duties with absolute integrity and due devotion. In some of the charge-sheets though the petitioner appears to have been exonerated but in six cases he was found guilty by the disciplinary authority. The excerpt of those six charge-sheets are briefly noticed as under :- Date of Charge-sheet Charges Remedy availed Penalty imposed 19.11.2004 Shortage of 33 full bags besides shortage of 319-92-572 quintals of special category rice which was loaded Ex- Narwana (Khanauri stocks) Appeal as well as review preferred thereto have been dismissed by the Chairman of the Corporation vide his order dated 5.12.2008 (Annexure P1). Token recovery of Rs. 15000 /- only as against the total loss of Rs.3,93,512.00 14.12.2004 Storage loss of rice stocks which upon liquidation came out to be 211-88-025 quintals Appeal as well as review preferred thereto have been dismissed by the Chairman of the Corporation vide his order dated 5.12.2008 (Annexure P2). Token recovery of Rs. 30000/- only as against the total loss of Rs.65,716.48 04.12.2004 Shortage of 88 full bags of paddy besides partial shortage of 324-82-000 quintals which was of special category loaded Ex.NTR Faridkot Appeal as well as review preferred thereto have been dismissed by the Chairman of the Corporation vide his order dated 3.12.2008 (Annexure P3) Token Recovery of Rs. 8000/- only 14.12.2004 Storage loss of rice stocks which upon liquidation came out to be 1068-42-875 quintals Appeal as well as review preferred thereto have been dismissed by the Chairman of the Corporation vide his order dated 17.10.2008 (Annexure P4) Token recovery of Rs. 2 lacs only as against the total loss of Rs.4,18,226.00 CWP No.3728 of 2010.doc - 3 – 13.12.2004 Shortage of 40 full bags besides partial shortage of 226-64- 905 quintals of special category rice of special category Appeal as well as review preferred thereto have been dismissed by the Chairman of the Corporation vide his order dated 05.12.2008 (Annexure P5) Token recovery of Rs. 10000/- only as against the total loss of Rs.1,47,072.00 14.12.2004 Storage loss of rice stocks which upon liquidation came out to be 338-76-895 quintals Appeal as well as review preferred thereto have been dismissed by the Managing Director of the Corporation vide his order dated 31.10.2008 (Annexure P6) Token Recovery of Rs. 60000/- only as against the total loss of Rs.1,53,551.00 (3). The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the impugned orders. (4). In my considered view, owing to the scope of interference by a writ court in the matters involving pure questions of facts and the impugned orders being essentially based upon the appreciation of material on record, no case to tinker with the impugned orders is made out. (5). It also appears that owing to the length of service and the fact that the petitioner was nearing retirement, the disciplinary authority was quite considerate and took a very lenient view by ordering ‘token recoveries’ only instead of recovery of the actual losses caused to the Corporation. CWP No.3728 of 2010.doc - 4 – (6). The petitioner’s contention that the charge-sheet dated 04.12.2004, culminating into passing of the impugned order dated 03.12.2008 (Annexure P3) was served on him after a period of 8 years of the alleged misconduct does not cut much ice as he has not been able to make out a case of any serious prejudice caused to him by the delay. The petitioner was given an opportunity which he availed and submitted his written statement dated 15.12.2004 and after due consideration thereof that the disciplinary authority has passed the order. (7). Similarly, the contention that pursuant to the charge- sheet dated 13.12.2004 the order dated 05.12.2008 (Annexure P5) was passed hurriedly deserves to be simply noticed and rejected for the reason that in that case also, the petitioner submitted his written statement and defence on 18.12.2004 and the same was duly considered while imposing the punishment. In a case of minor penalty where no regular enquiry is required to be conducted, it cannot be said that the impugned action was taken in a hush-hush manner. (8). Likewise, the order dated 25.02.2006 (Annexure P7) passed in the case of one Suresh Baboo, AGI(D), cannot be applied ipso facto in the petitioner’s case to justify the CWP No.3728 of 2010.doc - 5 – loss caused due to moisturisation of the stored rice as such a plea was very much available to him before the disciplinary authority. (9). The petitioner’s contention that in terms of the circular/policy decision dated 3/7.6.2005 (Annexure P8), the payment of Gratuity could be withheld only on dismissal or removal from service and since no such punishment has been awarded to him that the Gratuity/Leave Encashment is liable to be released, is also untenable as the respondent-authorities are entitled to set off the recoveries to be effected from the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders (Annexures P1 to P6). It is only after adjusting those amounts that the petitioner may seek the release of balance, if any. (10). For the reasons afore-mentioned, the writ petition is dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to represent to the authorities regarding the release of the Gratuity/Leave Encashment to which he might be entitled to after adjustment of the amounts recoverable from him as a result of the penal action(s). (11). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. CWP No.3728 of 2010.doc - 6 – 19.01.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge