C.W.P No. 14640 of 1999 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 14640 of 1999 Date of decision : November 17, 2008 S.K.Khanna, ...... Petitioner through Mr.P.Kartikaya, Advocate for Mr.Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate v. The Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra through its Registrar & another ...... Respondents through Mr.S.C.Sibal, Sr.Advocate with Mr. V.S.Rana, Advocate CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J This writ petition has been filed challenging the order imposing a penalty of Rs.4,58,988.60 on the ground that a regular inquiry had held the petitioner guilty along with another employee being jointly responsible for having caused a financial loss of Rs.5,73,737/- to the respondent- University. The petitioner joined the respondent-University as a Stenographer on 14.10.1963 and after climbing through the ranks retired as Additional Director (Administration) on 30.9.1996. On 25.2.1995, the Department of Distance Education put up a note for consideration of the Vice Chancellor for the purchase of 5000 reams of paper of the specification C.W.P No. 14640 of 1999 ::2:: of 20”x30”/11.6 kgs @ Rs.22.80 per kg from M/S Virender Agro Chemicals Limited Chandigarh for a total cost of Rs.13.50 lacs. This rate of Rs.22.80 per kg had earlier been approved by the Vice Chancellor and, as a matter of fact, paper at this rate was being purchased by the press of the University from the same firm. The concerned official marked this file to the Registrar but as the Registrar was on leave, the file reached the Accounts Branch. The Superintendent (Accounts) instead of agreeing with the proposal of the Department of Distance Education to purchase paper at the approved rate from M/S Virender Agro Chemicals Limited Chandigarh, suggested by means of his note dated 7.3.1995 that purchase of paper may be effected from Delhi by the same Committee which had been constituted for the purchase of envelopes worth about Rs.1 lac. This Committee consisted of the following Officers :- i) The petitioner; ii) Finance Officer or his nominee; iii) Deputy Registrar (Distance Education or his nominee). iv) Assistant Registrar (General) or his nominee; v) Manager, Printing and Publications” Thereafter, the Registrar by way of her note dated 8.3.1995 added Prof. Kuthiala as Chairman of the Committee. The members of the said committee went to Delhi on 27.2.1995 and found that no firm dealing in paper was willing to quote any rate because of expected steep rise in the price of paper. In its minutes dated 28.3.1995, the said committee recommended that paper may be purchased in April, 1995 after the prices stabilized. The members of the committee held a second meeting on C.W.P No. 14640 of 1999 ::3:: 1.5.1995, wherein they recommended the purchase of 2900 reams of paper at the rate of 39.75 per kg from M/S Chauhan Paper Corporation Lt. Yamuna Nagar. Consequently, paper at the above rate was ultimately purchased, thus, causing a loss of Rs.5,73,739/-. A preliminary inquiry was conducted which examined all the concerned persons. The report of the preliminary inquiry was sent to the petitioner along with a notice to show cause as to why a regular inquiry should not be initiated against him. In his reply, the petitioner categorically relied upon the report of the Auditors of the University to the following effect :- “The suggestion made by the Accounts Branch in its note dated 7.3.1995 to purchase this paper through a committee was misleading because there already existed a contract for supply of paper with M/S Varinder Agro Chemical Ltd. Chandigarh @ Rs.22.80 per kg. And the supply was also received on 29.3.1995. Had the University placed order with M/S Varinder Agro Chemicals Ltd. For the supply of 5000 reams of paper in the month of March, they would have got 5000 reams of paper against Rs.13.50 lacs. But they did not do so and in the month of May the same branch purchased 2918 reams of paper for Rs.13,45,450/-. Vide my note dated 15.3.1995 the audit allowed to draw an advance of Rs.13.50 lacs for purchase of the paper subject to the condition that the rate should not exceed Rs.22.80 per kg. In my opinion, the loss to the University in this case C.W.P No. 14640 of 1999 ::4:: occurred because of the Accounts Branch having changed the mode of purchase.” After considering the above report, a regular inquiry was ordered to be initiated against the petitioner. It has been clearly shown that despite notice, the petitioner did not associate with the regular inquiry. The Inquiry Officer returned a finding that financial loss had been caused to the University and held the petitioner liable to compensate 80% of the said loss. Learned counsel for the petitioner attacked the inquiry proceedings terming them to be vitiated on various grounds. I, however, find that the conduct of the petitioner in obdurately refusing to associate in the inquiry to be conducted by a retired District and Sessions Judge dis- entitles him from challenging those proceedings. I, however, find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the extent of his culpability. In the face of the report of the Auditors, the role of the Finance Department in proposing a change of established mode of purchase just a few days before the contract was due to come to an end cannot be held to be some thing which has absolutely no connection with this loss. The Inquiry Officer has discussed this aspect in the impugned inquiry report but that has been done only from the stand point of establishing the guilt, if any, of the officials thereof. There can be no quarrel with the finding of the Inquiry Officer that the proposal did not emanate from any culpable motives but it cannot be denied that had it not been for this unfortunate proposal there would have been no occasion to divert from the extent contract. Admittedly, the purchase committee did go to Delhi on 27.3.1995 and found that no vender was ready to quote any C.W.P No. 14640 of 1999 ::5:: price, in view of the anticipated change in prices. Consequently, the committee recommended that paper should be purchased in the month of April when prices would have stabilized. This recommendation was cleared up to the level of the Vice Chancellor. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the University urged that this Court is not sitting as a Court of appeal but is only exercising the well trodden path of judicial review. Conceding the position that power of judicial review is circumscribed, yet I draw sustenance from the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another vs S.S.Ahluwalia, 2007(7) SCC 257, wherein it has been held as follows :- “.... The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty, as a result of disciplinary proceedings, is very limited. The Court can interfere with the punishment only if it finds the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved. In such a case, the Court is to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the punishment. In an appropriate case, in order to avoid delay the court can itself impose lesser penalty......” Keeping the above mentioned parameters in view, I find that in the present case, the petitioner who joined as a Stenographer and rendered 33 years unblemished service (since nothing has been brought on record about any previous defalcation by him), and rose to the position of Additional Director, was guilty of some lapse in the last year of his service. As mentioned above, various circumstances did definitely contribute to the C.W.P No. 14640 of 1999 ::6:: loss. Additionally, it can not be lost sight of the fact that there were four other members of the committee. It must also be kept in mind that this penalty has not only resulted in wiping out the entire superannuation benefits of the petitioner, it has further saddled him with a liability of Rs.30,000/- odd. In the circumstances, I find that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was extremely dis-proportionate to the charged proved against him and hold that the petitioner can be held liable for only 50% of the loss caused to the University. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondent-University shall refund the remaining amount after deducting 50% of the loss amount to the petitioner with interest @ 6% p.a. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 17, 2008. JUDGE `kk'