CWP No.20273 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.20273 of 2008 Date of decision: 01.12.2008 Retired Duni Chand ...Petitioner Versus Punjab State Civil Supply Corporation & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 29th May, 2008, Annexure P-23 whereby punishment of stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect besides recovery of Rs.6,72,316/- has been imposed upon him. A charge-sheet was served on the petitioner while he was posted as Supervisor Grade-II in the respondent Corporation namely, PUNSUP. Number of allegations of embezzlement were levelled against him while he was posted in PUNSUP Centre at Samrala. It was alleged that while posted as such he along with his colleague had embezzled 3281 bags of wheat weighing 1640.50 Quintals, the value of which would come to Rs.14,00,658.30. Recovery of Rs.6,72,316/- was thus sought to be effected from him, he being responsible for 48% of the loss to the Corporation. An inquiry was thereafter instituted and the petitioner was CWP No.20273 of 2008 2 held guilty. Order, Annexure P-15 dated 7th July, 2005 was passed wherein punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon him. Besides, he was also held liable for recovery of the amount of Rs.6,72,316/-. The petitioner filed an appeal, Annexure P-7, against the said order. During the pendency of the said appeal, he approached this court by way of CWP No.4198 of 2008 wherein this court was pleased to pass the following order:- “Present: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the Petitioner ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (ORAL) The relief claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition has also been claimed by him by filing an appeal and application for stay (Annexure P-17 & P-18, respectively). After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the appellate authority to decide the appeal as well as application for stay (Annexure P-17 & P-18, respectively) expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Sd/- (Ashutosh Mohunta) Judge Sd/- (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 18, 2008” Now the appeal of the petitioner has been decided vide order, Annexure P-23. The operative part of the said order reads thus: “I have also given my careful consideration to other points raised by him. It transpires that the inquiry officer CWP No.20273 of 2008 3 held him guilty in the Enquiry report dated 21.12.2004. M.D. Punsup while deciding the charge-sheet concluded that the appellant has failed to take proper care of the stored stocks and loss occurred on account of his negligence. It is, however, observed that while deciding the quantum of punishment, he has ordered for stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect permanently. This appears to be on higher side as recovery of the loss incurred has been already imposed. There is, therefore, no need to impose punishment of stoppage of increments on permanent basis in addition to the recovery already being imposed. In view of above, the impugned order is modified to the extent that his three increments are stopped without cumulative effect besides the recovery imposed. Sd/- R.P.S. Pawar, IAS Chairperson 29.05.2008.” It is clear from the above order that punishment imposed upon the petitioner has been reduced from stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect to stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect. The petitioner has impugned the said order before this court and has raised number of pleas which are purely factual in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was not at all at fault for the loss caused to the corporation and that the wheat had deteriorated due to long storage on 'Katcha plinth'. Moreover, as the wheat was stored in the open, heavy rains also caused the loss. The petitioner has also submitted that his appeal had CWP No.20273 of 2008 4 not been decided by a duly constituted Appellate Committee. We have carefully considered the pleas raised by the counsel as well as the record annexed with the petition. It is evident that a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner for the loss caused to the Corporation while posted at PUNSUP Centre at Samrala. A regular inquiry was thereafter instituted. The Enquiry Officer went into all the pleas raised by the petitioner and came to the conclusion that the petitioner along with his another colleague was guilty of causing loss of 3281 bags of wheat to the Corporation. An independent Enquiry Officer namely, Shri B.R. Bansal, Additional District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) was appointed by the Corporation to conduct the inquiry. The said Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner as well as one Darshan Singh were guilty of the charges levelled against them. Thereafter, the matter was considered by the disciplinary authority of the petitioner and order Annexure P-15 imposing the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect was passed. Besides he was also held liable for recovery of Rs.6,72,316/-. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by detailed order, Annexure P-23. However, punishment was reduced to stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect. Since all the factual aspects have been considered by the departmental authorities of the petitioner, we are of the considered view that this is not a fit case for examining the factual pleas raised by the petitioner in writ jurisdiction. Counsel for the petitioner has not been CWP No.20273 of 2008 5 able to show how the appellate authority was not competent to pass the impugned order. This contention, therefore, has no force and is thus rejected. The counsel has also not been able to refer to any document in support of his plea that the Appellate Committee was not duly constituted. The petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments reported as P.R.T.C. vs. Darshan Singh, 2000(4) S.C.T. 688 and Prabhakaran vs. State of Kerala, 1999 (1) S.C.T. 722 to contend that the two punishments i.e. withholding of increments and recovery cannot be imposed on the petitioner as it would amount to double jeopardy. However, we are not convinced with this argument. The judgments relied upon are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In any case the appellate authority has already reduced the punishment imposed on the petitioner. We are thus of the view that the petitioner has been let off lightly for the loss caused to the corporation. Another judgment relied upon by the petitioner is B.D. Gupta vs. State of Haryana, 1972 S.L.R. 845 to contend that if an order effects an employee financially, it must be passed after an objective consideration and assessment of all relevant facts and circumstances and after giving the person concerned full opportunity to make out a case in his favour. In our view, this judgment does not help the petitioner as he was given full opportunity at various stages to put forward his defence. He availed of these opportunities before the Enquiry Officer as well as his disciplinary authorities. A perusal of Annexure P-1 shows that the CWP No.20273 of 2008 6 petitioner was initially charge-sheeted for major penalty under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 for the alleged misconduct. A regular inquiry ensued thereafter. The petitioner got full opportunity of hearing therein. Subsequently, punishment of stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect was awarded and recovery of the loss caused to the Corporation was ordered. We thus do not find any force in the contention of the petitioner and the same is rejected. The plea of the petitioner that the punishment of stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect as well as order directing recovery would amount to double jeopardy, is also devoid of force. In the judgment reported as Depot Manager, A.P. SRTC v. N. Ramulu, (1997) 11 SCC 319, the apex court held that recovery of pecuniary loss caused to the employer coupled with other penalty can be imposed on an employee and the same would not be a case of double jeopardy. Similar was the view taken by the apex court in Commr. of Rural Development v. A.S. Jagannathan, (1999) 2 SCC 313. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed as such. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE December 01, 2008 'rajpal'