C.W.P. No.15912 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.15912 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: MAY 05, 2009 S.K. Jain .....PETITIONER Versus Food Corporation of India and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.S.K. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Garg, Advocate, for the respondents. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner, who is working as Assistant Grade-1(D) in Food Storage Depot of the respondent-Corporation at District Office, Ferozepur, has filed the instant petition challenging the order dated 6/17.7.2007 (Annexure P-8) vide which a penalty of recovery of Rs.23,000/- has been imposed upon him; and the order dated 30.5.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority whereby his appeal against the aforesaid order has been dismissed. When the petitioner was working as Assistant Grade-II(D) in Food Storage Depot of the respondent-Corporation at District Office, Ferozepur, a charge-sheet was served upon him vide Memo No.Vig.4 (FZR- 3464)/Pb/07 dated 4.5.2007 for taking action under Regulation 60 of the C.W.P. No.15912 of 2008 -2- FCI (Staff) Regulation, 1971 with regard to the alleged storage loss of rice. The petitioner submitted detailed reply to the said charge-sheet. The reply was not found satisfactory and after providing an opportunity of hearing, minor penalty of recovery of Rs.23,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 6/17.7.2007. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal. The same has been rejected by the Appellate Authority while observing as under:- “the undersigned has gone through the contents of the charge sheet, the penalty order, the appeal of the appellant and other related records of the case in a careful manner. The appellant has mainly contended that i) he was relieved from Talwandi Bhai on 02.08.1997 after handing over the complete charge to his successor. As per Headquarters instructions dated 22.12.73 any official after handing over the charge cannot be held responsible of short coming ii) as per SLS it is very much clear that his successor Shri Baldev Singh, AG-I(D) has taken the responsibility of any type of loss since the stocks might have been issued after his relieving from the centre. It is observed from the record that as per SLS the rice stock was received w.e.f. 10.02.1996 to 02.04.1997 and issued out during 08/99 unit Kuljindra-II in which the appellant was posted and storage loss to the extent of 614-81-500 (4.10%) valuing to Rs.2,36,411-60 was observed. The storage loss has investigated in depth by storage loss committee of District Office as well as RO level who opined that the storage loss are on higher side. The storage loss committee also bifurcate the storage loss as 2.54% as justified and normal against Unit-II Kuljindra and the losses over and above this limit i.e. 1.56% considered as unjustified and abnormal for which the concerned custodian of the stock is responsible. Since he remained the custodian of the stock along with Shri Dharshan Singh, AG-II (D) Shri Nirmal Singh AG-II (D) for sufficient period therefore he is C.W.P. No.15912 of 2008 -3- responsible for unjustified portion of storage loss for his concerned unit. The stock was received on 10% weightment bases and issued out on 100% weighment basis violating the instructions. Hence his appeal has no force and is liable for rejection.” I have heard the counsel for the parties. Counsel for the petitioner argued that vide order dated 26.7.1997 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner was ordered to be posted at Food Storage Depot, District Office, Ferozepur and in pursuance of the said order he was relieved from Food Storage Depot, Talwandi Bahi on 2.8.1997 (AN) after handing over the entire charge to Shri Baldev Raj. The petitioner joined his duties at Ferozepur Depot on 4.8.1997. He submits that since the petitioner was relieved from Food Storage Depot, Talwandi Bahi on 2.8.1997 after handing over the charge to Shri Baldev Raj, he was not responsible for any storage loss. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that while handing over the charge by the petitioner to Shri Baldev Raj, a special note was added with the remarks “the stock taken over peripherally ..... subject to weighment at the time of issue in the presence of committee”. Regarding the stock at Unit-II Kuljindra, Talwandi Bahi, it was remarked that “lying in open in uncountable position. Most of the gunnies in rags condition.” It is conceded position that when the charge was handed over by the petitioner to Shri Baldev Raj, no weighment of the stock was made. It was agreed that weighment will be made at the time of issue of the stock in the presence of the committee. Keeping in view these facts, and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, a finding was recorded C.W.P. No.15912 of 2008 -4- that on weighment made before the committee, there was a shortage and on that account the impugned order of recovery of Rs.23,000/- was passed against the petitioner. In my opinion, once two authorities have considered each and every aspect of the matter and thereafter recorded a finding of fact regarding storage loss caused by the petitioner, no interference in those orders is required in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. May 05, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE