IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 15824 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 14.10.2009 The Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd., Hafed, Panchkula .... PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd., Hafed, Panchkula (hereafter referred to as `the petitioner Federation') has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing the order dated 19.3.2009 (Annexure P- 7), passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana (respondent No.5), whereby the order of imposing penalty of Rs. one lac upon respondent No.2 in the departmental proceedings has been quashed. In the present case, respondent No.2 is working as Accountant in the office of RHA, Cheeka. In the year 2003, he was charge sheeted on the allegation that he did not submit details of the employees working at CWP No. 15824 of 2009 -2- RHA, Cheeka, during the year 1999-2000, to the Head Office and due to his inaction, the name of Shri N.K. Sharma, who died in a road accident, could not be incorporated in the insurance policy. Ultimately, the petitioner Federation had to pay the amount of Rs. 2 lacs to the family of the deceased as compensation. In the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found that one Shri P.K. Arora, Manager and respondent No.2 were equally responsible for the loss caused to the petitioner Federation. On the basis of the said enquiry report, the Managing Director of the petitioner Federation ordered for recovery of Rs. one lac as penalty from respondent No.2. Before the Enquiry Officer as well as the disciplinary authority, respondent No.2 had taken a specific stand that he had prepared the requisite information on the performa, which was given in the circular and handed over the same personally to the D.M on 10.3.1999, but the D.M did not forward the same to the Head Office. The stand taken by respondent No.2 was not properly appreciated and the order of penalty was passed against him. The said order was upheld by the Appellate Authority. But the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana, in the revision filed by respondent No.2, on appreciation of his contention and evidence set aside the order of penalty, while coming to the conclusion that respondent No.2 had forwarded the requisite information on the requisite performa to the District Manager, who could not further forward the same to the Head Office. It has been found that negligence of the District Manager could not be imposed upon respondent No.2. While recording the said finding, the CWP No. 15824 of 2009 -3- orders of the punishing as well as the appellate authority were set aside. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner Federation and going through the impugned order as well as the other orders placed on record, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In my opinion, the revisional authority, after appreciating the evidence, has recorded a finding of fact. The said finding cannot be reversed in the writ jurisdiction, if the same is not wholly perverse and contrary to the evidence. In my opinion, the plea taken by respondent No.2 before the Enquiry Officer as well as the punishing and the appellate authorities, was not properly appreciated and the revisional court, after appreciating the evidence, has accepted the plea and came to the conclusion that respondent No.2 had forwarded the requisite information on the requisite performa to the District Manager, who could not further forward the same to the Head Officer. It cannot be said that the view taken by the revisional authority is not possible or is perverse. Therefore, the impugned order, which has been passed by the revisional authority by recording the finding of fact on the basis of appreciation of evidence, does not require any interference by this court. Dismissed. October 14, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE