LPA No. 1001 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1001 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: August 24, 2011 Capt. (Dr.) S.N. Sharma ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate, for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? GURDEV SINGH, J. 1. Challenge in the instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent, is to order dated 10.11.2010, vide which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition of the appellant-writ petitioner rejecting his prayer to set aside the order imposing 1/3rd cut in his pension and for releasing full pension. 2. It has come on the record that the appellant-petitioner was working as Director in Animal Husbandry Department, Haryana in the year 1992. During that period, for improving the breed of cows in the State of Haryana, 5000 doses of semen was imported from an Australian company. LPA No. 1001 of 2011 2 Later on, the semen was found to be dead because of mishandling/leakage of liquid nitrogen gas due to negligence of the staff at Karnal, thereby causing loss to the tune of ` 6,81,118/- to the Government. The following charges were levelled against the petitioner-appellant:- “1. That at the time of self-inspection of the semen on 15.2.92 imported from Australia Dr. Sharma had not arranged/made any arrangement for its microscopic inspection. 2. That Dr. Sharma had not shared his responsibility on his visit to Karnal on 15.2.92 while inspecting the imported semen to know about its quantity, quality and about its life. 3. That Dr. Sharma took no steps to get the 2nd jar of semen from the concerned agent till the date of his retirement which is a proof of gross carelessness. 4. That Dr. Sharma took no steps about the irregularity committed in getting the semen jar from an unauthorized agent which shows a gross irresponsibility. 5. That Dr. S.N. Sharma had not taken any legal action against the unauthorized agent Col. Bir Singh as to why he had done bungling with the semen/jar. This is a serious lapse on the part of Dr. Sharma. 3. The petitioner submitted detailed reply to the charge-sheet, which was found to be unsatisfactory by the competent authority and an inquiry was ordered. The Inquiry Officer was appointed, who after holding the inquiry, submitted his report dated 3.9.1996. On the basis of that report, LPA No. 1001 of 2011 3 a show cause notice dated 29.5.2002 was issued proposing to recover 1/3rd of the total loss of ` 6,81,118/- from the appellant-petitioner by imposing a cut of 33.3% in his pension. He submitted reply to the show cause notice. After going through that reply, the impugned order dated 9.10.2002 (Annexure P/5) was passed, vide which cut of 33.3% in the pension of the appellant-petitioner was imposed, which was 1/3rd of the aforesaid total loss and that order was approved by the Haryana Public Service Commission, vide order dated 27.9.2002. 4. The argument raised on behalf of the appellant-petitioner that cut in the pension can only be imposed, if by an act of omission and commission on the part of the delinquent employee pecuniary loss had been caused to the Government, did not find favour with the learned Single Judge. The appellant-petitioner took the plea that 5000 doses of semen, which was lost, was made good by the Australian company and, as such, the State Government did not suffer any loss. Before us also, he has reiterated that argument. The learned counsel also tried to argue that the appellant- petitioner could not have been held responsible for the dead semen, as he himself did not deal with the same at any stage. The loss had been caused at the time of receipt of these 5000 doses, as the container thereof was in a broken condition at that time. He was posted as Director and had only the supervisory duty. It was the Deputy Director who was responsible for the dead semen. 5. It is now well settled that the court in such like matters is not to sit as a court of appeal for re-appreciation or re-appraisal of the evidence produced during the inquiry proceedings. The finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer can be set aside, where it is based upon no evidence or on LPA No. 1001 of 2011 4 misreading of evidence. The disciplinary proceedings can also be set aside on the ground that proper procedure was not followed and that the delinquent employee was not given full opportunity to defend himself. It is very much apparent from the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner that he wants this court to re-appreciate the evidence produced before the Inquiry Officer, which is not permissible. It is not open for the appellant-petitioner to say that no loss has been caused to the State Government, as the Australian Company has already supplied another 5000 doses of semen to the Government free of cost. In fact, it was on account of placing of another order of 6000 doses of semen with another Australian Company that 5000 doses of semen was supplied by that Company as free of cost as a gesture of good will. 6. We do not fine any legal infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. This appeal does not merit admission and is dismissed accordingly. (M.M. KUMAR) (GURDEV SINGH ) JUDGE JUDGE August 24, 2011 prem