CWP No. 19454 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 19454 of 2008 Date of Decision : 1.12..2009 Gurbax Singh Sekhon .......... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.L. Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr. R.S. Bains, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the order Annexure P-4 vide which the penalty of recovery of Rs. 19,478/- ( Rupees nineteen thousand four hundred and seventy eight only ) was imposed on the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner while working as Officiating Secretary had made purchases of stationery items at the rate higher than those available in the market. It is not in dispute that the competent authority purchased the material, and the supply order was also placed by the Administrator of the Committee. The defence set up by the petitioner was that in pursuance to the CWP No. 19454 of 2008 2 directions issued by the Administrator of the Market Committee, the petitioner had called for tenders and the order was placed with the lowest tender. The enquiry was initiated on the basis of complaint made by Sh. Chaman Lal Singla, Ex-Vide President, Bhartiya Janta Party, Sangrur, on 25.8.2000, however, the show cause notice to the petitioner was issued only on 7.3.2006. The punishing authority found the petitioner guilty of negligence in making purchases, therefore, ordered the recovery of amount of the loss caused to the Market Committee. The petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal also failed. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that while taking decision the competent authority or the appellate authority have not taken into consideration the defence of the petitioner and the orders passed were non-speaking. However, we need not go into this controversy as the petition deserves to succeed for the reason that there was bar to initiate proceedings for recovery of the loss caused in view of the proviso to Section 29 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, which reads as under :- “29. Liability of member or employee of Committees or the Board.- (2) Every person shall be liable for the loss, waste or misapplication of any money or other property belonging to the Board, if such loss, waste or misapplication is proved to the satisfaction of the CWP No. 19454 of 2008 3 State Government to be the direct consequence of his neglect or misconduct in the performance of duties as a member or an employee of the Board, and he may, after being given an opportunity by a written notice to show cause why he should not be required to make good the loss, be surcharged with the value of such property or the amount of such loss by the State Government and if the amount is not paid within one month from the expiry of the period of appeal prescribed by sub-section (3) it shall be re-coverable as arrears of land revenue; Provided that no such person shall be called upon to show cause after the expiry of a period of four years from the occurrence of such loss, waste or misapplication or after the expiry of two years from the time of his ceasing to be a member or an employee, whichever expires first.” It is not in dispute that the complaint was of the year 2000, whereas show cause notice, for the first time, was issued to the petitioner on 7.3.2006 to show cause as to why action be not taken against him for the loss caused to the Market Committee. The show cause notice was in contravention of Section 29 of the Act as no action for recovery of the loss caused could be taken after expiry of four years from the date of occurrence. When there is specific provision in the Act dealing with CWP No. 19454 of 2008 4 recovery the general provision of the Punishment and Appeal Rules could not be involved to recover the loss. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, as the recovery was barred under Section 29 of the Act. 1.12.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE