IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1856 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 3, 2011 Jai Chand Saini …Appellant Versus The Haryana State Federation of Consumers Co-operative Wholesale Stores Limited and others …Respondents COR COR COR CORAM: AM: AM: AM: HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. Raj Karan, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, AC M.M. KUMAR, AC M.M. KUMAR, AC M.M. KUMAR, ACJ 1. This appeal filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 13.5.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant. 2. The petitioner-appellant has been found guilty in a regular departmental inquiry of the charge of causing stock shortage of `4330.47/-. He has also been found making alterations in the Attendance Register and drawing excess TA/DA. Before the learned Single Judge two arguments were raised - (a) the Managing Director was not competent authority and, therefore, he should have been charge sheeted on the order of the Board of Directors; and (b) a copy of the inquiry report was not furnished. LPA No. 1856 of 2011 (O&M) 2 3. The learned Single Judge has rejected both the arguments by observing that Rule 1-A of the Staff Service Rules was added in the year 1983 and the Managing Director was competent to make appointments. The learned Single Judge also held that the issue was not raised before the authority at the time when punishment was imposed or before the Appellate Authority. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from para 2 of the judgment, which reads as under: “2. The removal of the petitioner had been made on the charges of causing stock shortage of Rs.4330.47, making some alterations in the attendance register and drawing excess TA/DA and also availing on some advance which is still not recovered from him. To all these charges, there had been justification given by the petitioner. It may not necessary to examine all factual details, since on the merits of the contention raised, the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have considered to hold that the petitioner had been guilty of the charges levied against him. On the tenability of the order as one having been issued by a person, who was incompetent, the second respondent-Management has joint issues in the written statement by urging that Rule 1-A had been amended and as per the amended Rules since 1983, the Managing Director was the competent authority to make appointment of staff of all categories carrying initial basic pay upto Rs.250/-. In fact the issue of competency was not even urged before the authority when the punishment was imposed or before the LPA No. 1856 of 2011 (O&M) 3 appellate authority when the petitioner was trying to assail the order passed by the competent authority. Though, I have not the copy of the amended rules, I will not think that this matter must be considered taking into consideration the objections which is raised by the petitioner. The issue of competency though it would have been relevant, I will not take that in favour of the petitioner by the only fact that if such an objection was tenable he could not have failed to take it at first instance or at the time when the petitioner ought to have been aware of the amended rules as referred to in the written statement of the second respondent.” 4. The other argument that a copy of the inquiry report has not been furnished, has been raised before us. On our repeated queries as to whether any prejudice has been caused for non- furnishing of the copy of the inquiry report, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has not been able to point out anything. Therefore, we are of the view that in the absence of any prejudice having been caused, non-furnishing of copy of the inquiry report is wholly immaterial. The facts proved before the authorities would show that the petitioner-appellant has embezzled the public funds, made alteration in the Attendance Register and have drawn excess TA/DA. There is no room to admit the appeal, which is wholly without merit. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) October October October October 3, 201 , 201 , 201 , 2011 Judge Judge Judge Judge PKapoor