CWP No.13760 of 1990 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.13760 of 1990 Date of decision: December 02, 2008. Manohar Lal Sehgal ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri TPS Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Attariwala, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): In this civil writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 30th May, 1990 (Annexure P-6) whereby punishment of recovery of Rs.20,240.51 has been imposed on him. The petitioner joined as a Junior Engineer in PWD, B&R Department, Punjab, in January 1971 and he remained posted as such in the Construction Sub-Division at Banga during the year 1972 to 1974. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 26.10.1976 under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 alleging that he was responsible for causing loss to the tune of Rs.41,534/- CWP No.13760 of 1990 -: 2 :- by giving advance payment to the brick-kiln owners and not purchasing the bricks. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 20.12.1976 (Annexure P-3) explaining that bricks were lifted from most of the brick-kilns except in the case of brick-kiln of Faqir Chand from where only 1.77 lacs bricks out of 2.59 lac could be lifted for the reason that the earth-work at Phagwara- Farala road was not got completed by the BDO and the army authorities and meanwhile the petitioner was transferred from the said Sub-Division in June, 1974. Thereafter, the matter remained under carpet for years together till the impugned order dated 30.5.1990 (Annexure P-6) was passed holding that the petitioner along with one Pritam Singh, the then JE, being responsible for the loss in question, he was liable to make good half of the loss, i.e., Rs.20,240.51. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. The motion bench vide its order dated 30.10.1990 had stayed operation of the impugned order dated 30.5.1990. I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record. In my considered view, the writ petition deserves to succeed for more than one reason. Firstly, the impugned order dated 30.5.1990 is a totally cryptic and laconic order and is totally silent on the explanation which the petitioner had furnished vide his reply dated 20.12.1976. Since the impugned order visits the petitioner with penal consequences, it was imperative upon the punishing Authority to pass a reasoned order. The order suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and runs contrary to the principles of natural justice and fair play. CWP No.13760 of 1990 -: 3 :- Secondly, the petitioner was charge-sheeted in the year 1976. He submitted his reply within a reasonable period. No explanation whatsoever has come-forth as to why the respondents took long 14 years to take a decision, especially when no regular inquiry has been held. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.5.1990 is quashed. No order as to costs. December 02, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge