CWP No. 17674 of 2006 ( 1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17674 of 2006 Date of Decision: 10.4.2008 Bhagwant singh ....Petitioner Versus Food Corporation of India and others .....Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: Shri G.S. Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Advocate, for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P.3 dated 18.9.2001, whereby penalty of recovery of Rs.2,90,484/- was imposed upon the petitioner. The challenge is also to the order Annexure P.9 dated 13.5.2002, whereby such order was affirmed in appeal and order dated 28.2.2005 (Annexure P.10), whereby the review against the said orders was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders on the ground that the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner in the year 2000 on account of the loss for the stocks in the year 1980. It is thus, alleged that the charge-sheet has been issued after gross delay and laches and, therefore, such disciplinary proceedings are not sustainable. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme CWP No. 17674 of 2006 ( 2) Court in State of M.P. v. Bani Singh and another, 1990(2) SLR 198. It is also argued that the petitioner was posted for a short duration at Shahkot and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be burdened with the liability of shortages as the other officers were responsible for maintaining the stocks in good condition. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the present petition. The judgment in Bani Singh's case (supra) has been examined by us in CWP No. 3254 of 2007 (Amar Singh v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and others) decided on 8.4.2008, wherein it has been held that the delinquent can succeed in seeking quashing of the disciplinary proceedings on the basis of delay and laches only on proof of prejudice. It was held to the following effect:- “In the present case, the first charge sheet has been served upon the petitioner in the year 2003. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. It is open to the petitioner to prove during the course of enquiry proceedings any prejudice which he has suffered or likely to suffer on account of issuance of the charge sheet in the year 2003. However, at this stage when the allegations are subject matter of enquiry, we do not find that any case is made out for quashing of the charge sheets on the threshold. The charge sheet is not stated to be without jurisdiction. As held in Chaman Lal Goyal's case (supra) that delay in issuing the charge sheet itself is not a ground to quash the same. The delinquent has to prove the prejudice suffered by him at the time of serving of the charge sheet. The question of delay in issuing the charge sheet is a question of fact which requires to be raised before the CWP No. 17674 of 2006 ( 3) disciplinary authority. On the face of it, the charge sheet cannot be quashed merely on account of delay.” In the present case, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court after the penalty of recovery of loss has been imposed upon him. He has not raised any plea of having suffered prejudice on account of issuance of charge-sheet before the departmental authorities. Therefore, the petitioner is precluded to raise a plea of having suffered any prejudice in the writ petition for the first time. Still further, the petitioner has not shown that a prejudice has been caused to the petitioner on account of issuance of the charge-sheet in the year 2000. Prejudice is a question of fact, which is required to be alleged and proved. By mere use of word `prejudice', it cannot be inferred that delayed issuance of the charge-sheet is sufficient to quash the proceedings. Therefore, the first argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is without any merit. The argument that the petitioner was posted at Shahkot for a short duration, has been considered in extenso by the learned Appellate Authority. It has been found that the petitioner has not disputed his posting at the time of acceptance of paddy stocks. The physical verification committee conducted the physical verification with effect from 26.6.1981 and found that misappropriation has been made in the paddy stocks of crop year 1979-80 and 1980-81. It was reported that the staff had a deep plan for the last six months and had intentionally brought the situation to such a climax with a mischievous motive so as to baffle any visiting officer to reach at any conclusion. The efforts were made to keep the authorities in dark about the trend of storage loss so that the motive plotted by the staff CWP No. 17674 of 2006 ( 4) may be achieved. It has been further found that in the physical verification conducted by the Assistant Manager with effect from 13.7.1981 to 31.7.1981, it was mentioned that while peripheral counting was done, many stacks were found to have been deliberately got fallen/kept in un-countable position. But alarming shortages of 10035 bags of PR-106 was observed when stacks were properly kept. The crates were placed in such a manner that it worked as over bridge and above that paddy bags were placed to give the impression of the stack. Considering, inter-alia, other facts, it was found that the petitioner is one who is responsible for the shortages and thus, the appeal was dismissed. The said view was affirmed by the Revisional Authority. The arguments raised by the petitioner before this Court has been considered by the Appellant and Revisional Authority and it was found that there is no substance in the said arguments. In view of the above, we do not find that the penalty of recovery on account of shortage of stocks can be said to be legally unwarranted or is in violation of the principles of natural justice, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE April 10, 2008 ds