Civil Writ Petition No.538 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.538 of 2006 Date of decision: March 24, 2008 Jarnail Singh … Petitioner Versus Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. & others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. In the present writ petition, filed by Jarnail Singh son of Mehar Singh resident of Dogar Basti, St.No.13-R, Faridkot, Distt. Faridkot, two fold grievance has been made for setting aside the chargesheet and summary of allegations dated 30th May, 1997 (Annexure P-1), inquiry report dated 5th May, 1998 (Annexure P-4), order dated 26th November, 1998 (Annexure P-7) and order dated 18th January, 2005 (Annexure P-9). One that on 18th March, 1998, petitioner has sent a letter to respondent No.4 (inquiry officer) that as he has not been paid suspension allowance, therefore, he could not attend the inquiry on 25th March, 1998 and same should not have proceeded ex-parte. Second grievance is that order passed by appellate authority (Annexure P-9) cannot be sustained as the same is not a speaking order. Civil Writ Petition No.538 of 2006 2 We are unable to accept both the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. Briefly stated, petitioner who was an employee of PUNSUP Centre, Kotkapura, District Faridkot, was put under suspension for holding an inquiry against him. On 10th June, 1997, he was served with a memorandum along with chargesheet and summary of allegations. Petitioner, opted not to file any reply to the chargesheet. The inquiry was assigned to respondent No.4. During the inquiry, witnesses were examined. Then suddenly, on 18th March, 1998, petitioner had sent a letter that he cannot associate himself with inquiry as suspension allowance has not been paid. In inquiry, date fixed was 25th March, 1998 and then it was adjourned to 31st March, 1998. An opportunity of hearing was granted by the inquiry officer on 31st March, 1998. Due to non-appearance, he was proceeded ex-parte. It was concluded by the inquiry officer that the charges have been proved against him and there was a shortage of 2716 bags of wheat and thereby there was total liquidation of stocks amounting to Rs.19,35,713/-. In reply, it has been stated that the subsistence allowance due as a result of suspension for the months of February and March, 1998 had been paid to the petitioner on 16th April, 1998. We are unable to find out as to what prejudice has been caused to the petitioner in case subsistence allowance for February and March was paid to him on 16th April, 1998. In no way, this can be construed as sufficient cause to abandon the inquiry. Furthermore, an opportunity was given on 25th March, 1998 and 31st March, 1998 and then inquiry proceeded ex-parte. Subsistence allowance was paid on 16th April, 1998. It is too late in the day after 10 years to say that since subsistence allowance of two months was paid late, therefore, the entire inquiry will vitiate. Civil Writ Petition No.538 of 2006 3 Second challenge made to the order (Annexure P-9) that the appellate authority has not passed speaking order, also cannot be sustained. Annexure P-9 only conveys the decision of the appellate authority, in which it has been stated that based upon the above facts, the appellate committee decided to uphold the punishment already ordered by the MD, as no new fact was put forth by the appellant before the appellate committee, appellate authority had passed the order in January, 2005. Petitioner had been held guilty to shortage of 2716 bags and causing liquidation of stocks worth Rs.19,35,713/-. Reliance has been placed by the counsel on Ghanshyam Das Shrivastava v. State of MP, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 1183 to state that non-payment of subsistence allowance will vitiate the inquiry. As in the facts of that case, place of inquiry was at a distance of more than 500 kilometers and not even a single penny of subsistence allowance was paid, the inquiry was held to be bad. But in the present case, subsistence allowance of February and March was paid in April, therefore on the facts of the present case, the case cited is distinguishable, especially when petitioner was being regularly paid subsistence allowance for a period more than one year. Reliance placed on another decision of this Court in R.K.Goel v. State of Haryana, 1996(1) SCT 577, is also distinguishable as in that case, petitioner had agitated before the writ Court that withholding of subsistence allowance had eclipsed the ability of the delinquent official to appear in the inquiry. But in the present case there was only delay of 16 days in payment of the subsistence allowance and for earlier period of more than one year, subsistence allowance had been paid. Therefore, it cannot be construed that petitioner had sufficient cause to disassociate from the inquiry. Civil Writ Petition No.538 of 2006 4 On both counts, counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy us and we do not find any merit in the present writ petition, hence the same is dismissed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] Judge [Ashutosh Mohunta] Judge March 24, 2008. rps