IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.10 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 3.2.2010 R.K. Tindwal. -----Appellant Vs. State of Haryana & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Manu K. Bhandari , Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Ritu Bahri, Sr. DAG, Haryana. ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition of the appellant against order dated 8.8.2008, Annexure P-4, passed by the Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) to the extent of directing recovery of pecuniary loss caused to HUDA quantified at Rs.1,65,247/-. 2. The appellant was employed with the State of Haryana as Sub Divisional Engineer. He was sent on deputation with the HUDA for the period from 13.11.1997 to 25.5.2007. A chargesheet was given to Shri R.R. Punia, Junior Engineer who LPA No.10 of 2010 worked under the appellant, which led to an inquiry. Inquiry Report, Annexure P-1, was submitted. Finding with regard to charge No.3 for the alleged causing of financial loss is as under:- “Further as per PWD codes the bill is checked by the Sub Divisional Engineer and payment is made by the Executive Engineer to the contractor after their full satisfaction and after observing the codal & financial regulations. Sh. R.K. Tindwal the then Sub Divisioinal Engineer in his statement has stated that the payment was referred to the Executive Engineer after his physical cross checking of the works. The payments to the agencies who executed the work was released upon the satisfaction of the then Executive Engineer. Moreso the then Executive Engineer also recommended to the Chief Engineer to file the case well before the issue of charge sheet to Sh. R.P. Punia, JE vide his no.3628 dated 16.4.2002 (Annexure ‘12’).” 3. In view of the said finding, Show Cause Notice dated 3.6.2008, Annexure P-2, was served to the appellant, alleging as under:- “i. .........Further, while being asked to do so by the Vigilance Team verifying the works, Sh. R.K. Tindwal, SDE failed to actually and physically locate the works co-relatable to the said recorded and paid the work, making the said payment made as ‘payment made against fictitiously executed works that remained executed only on papers and not physically on ground’ making the payment made amounting to Rs.46,103/- against the said fictitiously executed work 2 LPA No.10 of 2010 as loss to HUDA and Sh. R.K. Tindwal, SDE being the Engineer in Charge becomes responsible for the above stated lapses and causing the pecuniary loss of the said Rs.46,103/- through his negligence and breach of orders on his part on his account. There were similar other irregularities alleging causing of pecuniary loss of Rs.1,83,847/-. 4. After considering reply to the said Show Cause Notice, impugned order dated 8.8.2008 was passed, ordering recovery of Rs.1,83,847/- from the appellant. 5. The appellant filed writ petition and submitted that the work was executed by Shri R.P. Punia, who was Junior Engineer and punishment imposed on him was only stoppage of one increment. As per findings of the Inquiry Report, no pecuniary loss was caused and Show Cause Notice was against the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Thus, the order of recovery by holding that the appellant caused loss was against the findings of the Inquiry Officer, which aspect has not been considered while ordering recovery against the appellant. 6. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that departmental appeal of the appellant was pending which had yet to be decided. It was further held that since causing of loss by the appellant was established, there was justification for ordering recovery. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3 LPA No.10 of 2010 8. A perusal or order, Annexure P-4, shows that finding in the Inquiry Report to the effect that the appellant did not cause any financial loss, has not been adverted. On being asked, learned counsel for the State has not been able to show that while passing the order, findings in the Inquiry Report were taken into account. It is also undisputed that the said findings were the relevant material which ought to have been considered. 9. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and quash the impugned order, Annexure P-4. We, however, make it clear that the competent authority will be at liberty to pass fresh order after considering the facts and circumstances of the case in accordance with law. 10. The appeal is disposed of. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE February 03, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 4