Civil Revision No. 1323 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1323 of 2009 Date of decision : March 23, 2010 Balbir Singh ....Petitioner versus Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Ms. Jyoti Sareen, Advocate for Ms. Renu Bala Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. CS Bakshi, Advocate, for the respondents L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Balbir Singh has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 24.7.2008, Annexure P/2, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur and appellate order dated 18.11.2008, Annexure P/1, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur thereby dismissing plaintiff's application for temporary injunction. Plaintiff is employee of Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (PUNSUP) defendant no. 1. The plaintiff while posted as Public Distribution Clerk was served charge sheet for major penalty. Civil Revision No. 1323 of 2009 -2- The Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner as well as co-employee Suram Singh who was also separately charge sheeted. However, defendant no. 2 Managing Director, PUNSUP disagreed with the finding of the Inquiry Officer and recorded disagreement note which was sent to the plaintiff. Opportunity of hearing was also given to the plaintiff. Thereafter punishment order Annexure P/4 was passed against the plaintiff ordering recovery of Rs 1,74,425/- being 40% of Rs 4,36,064/- the amount of loss allegedly caused by the plaintiff and his co-employee Suram Singh. Plaintiff has challenged said punishment order dated 14.2.2007, Annexure P/4 by filing suit. In the suit the plaintiff sought temporary injunction restraining defendants from deducting any amount from the salary of the plaintiff pursuant to the impugned punishment order till decision of the suit. Learned trial court vide impugned order dated 24.7.2008, Annexure P/2 dismissed plaintiff's application for temporary injunction. Appeal preferred by plaintiff against the said order has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide impugned judgment dated 18.11.2008, Annexure P/1. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Inquiry Officer vide detailed inquiry report Annexure P/3 exonerated the petitioner of the charge against him after analysing the evidence in detail and the Punishing Authority did not record reasons in the disagreement note while disagreeing with the finding of the Inquiry Officer. Learned counsel Civil Revision No. 1323 of 2009 -3- for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank versus Kunj Behari Misra, 1998(3) SCT 833 in support of her aforesaid contention. I have carefully considered the contention but find no force there. According to the judgment in the case of Kunj Behari Misra (supra), if the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the Inquiry Authority, it must record its tentative reasons for disagreement and also must give opportunity to the delinquent employee to represent against same. In the instant case, however, this requirement has been complied with because the Disciplinary Authority recorded its disagreement note and conveyed the same to the plaintiff and also opportunity of hearing was granted to the plaintiff by the Disciplinary Authority. Prima facie, there has been no irregularity or illegality in the procedure or in observing the principles of natural justice by the Disciplinary Authority. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the charges are not substantiated against the plaintiff cannot be accepted for two reasons. Firstly, the civil court does not sit as court of appeal against finding of the Disciplinary Authority. Secondly, at the stage of temporary injunction only, no such conclusion can be drawn unless there is some strong material which is lacking in the instant case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that PUNSUP has also filed a suit for recovery of amount of alleged loss along with interest thereon against the present plaintiff and his co-employee Suram Singh. Learned counsel for the respondentd, however, contended that the suit had to be filed because the same would have become time barred if not Civil Revision No. 1323 of 2009 -4- filed at this stage. It is contended on behalf of respondents that if the plaintiff succeeds in the suit regarding disciplinary action, PUNSUP would still have right to recover the loss amount from the delinquent employees including the plaintiff and therefore, the suit has been filed. However, it has to be clarified that PUNSUP cannot prima facie recover double the amount of alleged loss i.e. in disciplinary action as well as in civil suit filed by PUNSUP. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that defendants are deducting 60% of the salary of the plaintiff. However, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out violation of any rule or law by the aforesaid action of the respondents. However, nevertheless respondent may sympathetically consider the request of the plaintiff- petitioner to deduct lesser proportion of his salary so that the petitioner and his family may not starve. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no illegality in the order of the courts below. The plaintiff-petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of temporary injunction. Revision petition is bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the suit. ( L.N. Mittal ) March 23, 2010 Judge 'tiwana'