LPA No.2159 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 29.11.2011 Azad Singh Dalal ...Appellants VERSUS State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA PRESENT: Mr.Saurabh Dalal, Advocate for the appellant Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) CM No.5825 of 2011 CM is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. LPA No.2159 of 2011 This LPA arises out of order dated 29.8.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.15900 of 2011. Facts relevant for the purpose of present appeal are being noticed here-in-after. The appellant was working as District Horticulture Officer, Sonepat. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 24.7.2008 under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 containing six charges. On consideration of the reply to the charge-sheet, regular enquiry LPA No.2159 of 2011 2 was ordered against him. The Enquiry Officer vide his enquiry report dated 17.12.2009 found charges no.1, and 5 as “Not proved” and charges no.2, 3, 4 and 6 as “Proved”. On the basis of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 28.7.2011 for recovery of Rs.1,03, 950/- being 40% of the total amount of loss i.e. Rs.2,95,875/- caused to the Government from the retirement gratuity of the appellant. This order came to be challenged by the appellant in the writ petition referred to above. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition vide the impugned order. It has been contended before us that since the Enquiry Officer found that there is no loss caused to the Government for some of the charges and in respect of the charges where the appellant has been found guilty, there were only irregularities in not inviting the tenders, hence recovery from the retiral dues of the appellant is impermissible in law. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length and perused the enquiry report, the order of imposition of penalty as also the order of the learned Single Judge. Enquiry Officer found most of the charges as proved. It has been clearly observed that the appellant did not adopt the prescribed procedure for making purchase by inviting tenders/quotations. In most of the charges where there were allegations of embezzlement or misappropriation, except charge no.3, it has been observed that no loss has been caused. However in respect to charge no.3, the Enquiry Officer found that the appellant is guilty of causing loss to the extent of Rs.2,59,875/- to the Government. On consideration of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority ordered recovery of 40% of the loss from the gratuity of the appellant who retired from service in the meantime. LPA No.2159 of 2011 3 Learned counsel for the appellant has taken us to the findings of the enquiry officer to argue that no loss has been caused. However, we find that in one of the charges referred to above, even the Enquiry Officer has found that the loss has been caused to the Government. There is common finding in respect of almost all the charges that prescribed procedure has not been adopted in making the purchases. Thus, the misconduct on the part of the appellant has been established. The disciplinary authority has ordered recovery of only 40% of loss caused to the Government. The penalty is based upon evidence/material on record. It is settled law that High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as a court of appeal over the disciplinary proceedings so as to re- appraise the evidence/material on record. Even if two views are possible, the one adopted by the disciplinary authority has to be accepted, unless same is perverse. We do not find any perversity in the findings. We have no reason to differ from the opinion of the learned Single Judge. We find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE 29.11.2011 MFK CWP No.10585 of 2010 4