R.S.A. No.1949 of 1984 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 11.3.2010 1) R.S.A.No.1949 of 1984 Food Corporation of India .... Appellant Versus Avtar Singh (since deceased) through LRs. ... Respondents 2) R.S.A.No.1950 of 1984 Food Corporation of India .... Appellant Versus Vinod Kumar ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : None for the appellant. Mr. P.S. Kang, Advocate for the respondent(s) in both the appeals. .... MAHESH GROVER, J. This order will dispose of the aforesaid two appeals. These appeals by the defendant are directed against the judgments & decrees dated 15.9.1983 passed by the Additional Distirct Judge, Jalandhar (in short 'the first Appellate Court'), whereby the appeals of the plaintiffs-respondents were accepted and their suits were decreed while setting aside the judgments & decrees dated 6.10.1980 of the Sub Judge, Ist Class, Jalandhar (referred to hereinafter as `the trial Court'). R.S.A. No.1949 of 1984 -2- Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs- respondents Avtar Singh and Vinod Kumar filed two separate suits challenging the action of the Food Corporation of India and the orders passed by the authorities, by which recovery of one year's basic pay in 36 equated installments was ordered to be effected from them and the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was also ordered. The case of the plaintiffs-respondents is that while working as Assistant Grade-II at food Storage Depot Kapurthala, in the year 1970, they had not accounted for certain bags of paddy. Avtar Singh was alleged to have not entered the receipt of 430 bags of paddy after receiving them from Dhliwan in the Master Ledger and thus, case for having misappropriating these bags was set up against him. Vinod Kumar other plaintiff was charge-sheeted similarly for not entering the receipt of 330 bags of paddy. The enquiry officer conducted an inquiry and passed order dated 18.6.1977 imposing the punishment of recovery of an amount equal to one year's basic pay in 36 equated installments and also stoppage of two increments of pay with cumulative effect for the loss they had caused to the appellant. The appellant justified the passing of the order and also pleaded that the plaintiffs-respondents have misappropriated the amount as alleged against them and proper inquiry had been conducted to justify the charges against them, which were proved in accordance with law. After framing of the issues, parties led their respective R.S.A. No.1949 of 1984 -3- evidence. After appraisal of the evidence, learned Trial Court dismissed the suits and the appeals filed by the plaintiffs were allowed by the first Appellate Court and findings of the trial Court were reversed. Aggrieved by the said findings, the defendant/appellant is in appeals. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the appellant. Consequently, I have perused the impugned judgments and other material relevant for the purposes of deciding the appeals with the assistance of learned counsel appearing for the respondent(s). It transpires that the inquiry was conducted by one Sh. B.S. Basur, District Manager, Storage Regional Office, against both the plaintiffs. Plaintiff Vinod Kumar Shama was given the benefit of doubt by Sh. B.S. Basur, whereas on the basis of some observations made in this very inquiry Avtar Singh the second respondent was proceeded against. It has also been observed that the record of the inquiry was never made available to the respondents and consequently, they were deprived of meeting the material against them. It was also observed by the first Appellate Court that the inquiry officer failed to establish the loss caused to the appellant in monetary terms and further concluded that the charge against the plaintiffs-respondents was not proved as Vinod Kumar Sharma was given the benefit of doubt on the basis of same enquiry while Avtar Singh was charge sheeted and the quantity of bags which was alleged to be misappropriated and monetary loss had not been established. Even though according to the charge Avtar Singh had not accounted for 430 bags of paddy but the inquiry officer could only R.S.A. No.1949 of 1984 -4- establish and attribute the loss of 100 bags to him. Impugned orders were therefore, set aside as having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and being devoid of any relevant evidence and material. As a result thereof, the subsequent recovery on the basis of orders, was also held to be illegal. A perusal of the impugned judgment does not reveal any erroneous reasoning as it is settled principle of law that if inquiry officer does not provide the necessary material to the delinquent official, who is facing such proceeding, it is a violation of principle of natural justice and the order is unsustainable and the benefit accordingly has to go to such a delinquent official. In any eventuality, the inquiry officer did not establish any charge against one of the plaintiff-respondent i.e. Vinod Kumar Sharma, whereas in the case of Avtar Singh, similar material was used against him even though the same was not of the kind that could establish the case against him. The findings, therefore, do not warrant any interference in the absence of any substantial question of law, moreso, when the pecuniary loss has not been established before the Court so as to warrant and justify the recovery of the amount imposed upon the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent(s) has thereafter pointed out that Avtar Singh the plaintiff/respondent has expired and consequent to his death all the benefits, which had accrued to him, have been granted to his legal representatives. In so far as, Vinod Kumar is concerned, he also stood exonerated and he has also been granted his seniority and subsequent benefits. R.S.A. No.1949 of 1984 -5- He stated that the only question remains to be answered in these appeals is that whether in view of the aforesaid, the recovery of one year's basic pay, which was recovered from the plaintiffs/respondents in 36 equated installments and also the amount regarding increments, could be recovered from them or not and they were entitled to refund and the same. Since none has appeared for the appellant, these contentions go uncontroverted. Having regard to the aforesaid observations, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court are not erroneous and hence the action taken against the respondents on the basis of the orders impugned in the civil suits was unjustified and therefore, the recovery effected from them pursuant to the orders would also be clearly unjustified. The respondents are, thus, entitled to the recovery of the amount, which has been effected from them pursuant to the orders impugned in the civil suits. Both the appeals are held to be without any merit and are dismissed with the aforesaid modifications in the order of the Courts below. 11th March, 2010 (MAHESH GROVER) Monika JUDGE