CWP No.19218 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.19218 of 2008 Date of decision: 11.11.2008 Sucha Singh ...Petitioner Versus Punjab Agriculture University Ludhiana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. M.L. Saggar, Senior Advocate with Mr. ABS Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 29th November, 2006, Annexure P-7 whereby his two increments were stopped with cumulative effect and recovery of Rs.1,86,625/- was ordered. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of order, Annexure P-13 whereby his appeal against the order Annexure P-7 was rejected. He has also sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to refund the amount already deducted from his salary. It has been averred in the petition that the petitioner was appointed as a Field Assistant on 30th October, 1972 in Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana. The petitioner thereafter worked in the said University in various capacities. In 2004, allegation was levelled against him that he had not handed over the complete charge of CWP No.19218 of 2008 2 the store to his successor while posted as Storekeeper in the Department of Immunology on his transfer w.e.f. 29th October, 1997 and that a shortage of articles worth Rs.1,86,625/- had been found therein. Thereafter, Dr. S.K. Sodhi, Dean, College of Agriculture University was appointed as the Enquiry Officer by the Vice Chancellor. The Enquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and submitted his report on 22nd August, 2006 wherein he found that the allegation pertaining to handing over complete charge of the store to his successor and shortage of Rs.1,86,625/- stood proved. Thus, a show cause notice dated 15th September, 2006 proposing penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and recovery of an amount of Rs.1,86,625/- was proposed. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice. However, after considering the same, order Annexure P-7 dated 29th November, 2006 was passed directing stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect besides recovery of an amount of Rs.1,86,625/-. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the impugned order. The same was rejected by the Board of Management in its meeting held on 22nd July, 2008. The order, Annexure P-13 dated 7.8.2008 was thus conveyed to the petitioner. The petitioner has sought to impugn the order passed by the Vice Chancellor and the Board of Management before this court through this writ petition. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have given a careful thought to the entire case. CWP No.19218 of 2008 3 The counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the documents Annexures P-14 & P-15. It has been contended that the amount held recoverable from the petitioner is totally against the record. Various entries in this regard have been referred to. The counsel has contended that a perusal thereof would show that the findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority are absolutely incorrect. It has been further contended that the petitioner could not be held liable for alleged shortage of articles to the tune of Rs.1,86,625/- as he had handed over the stocks to his successor as would be clear from a perusal of Annexure P-15. This apart, the petitioner could not be held liable for shortage of Rs.43,019/- as the same was in respect of consumable items issued by the petitioner on the indents of the officials and had been used by them. A perusal of the order, Annexure P-7 shows that the disciplinary authority considered the inquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and thereafter decided to impose the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and recovery of Rs.1,86,625/-. All the pleas raised by the petitioner in this petition were raised before the Enquiry Officer as well as the disciplinary authority. A finding of fact was arrived at by the Enquiry Officer which was considered by the disciplinary authority. The Board of Management also considered the appeal filed by the petitioner and passed the detailed order, Annexure P-13. We thus find that the disputed questions of fact which have been raised in this petition, cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction. All CWP No.19218 of 2008 4 the pleas raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition are factual in nature. The petition does not reveal infringement of any fundamental constitutional or legal right of the petitioner. We thus do not find it a fit case to interfere in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE November 11, 2008 'rajpal'