CWP No. 16049 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 16049 of 2008 Date of decision: September 10, 2008 Sat Pal Bansal --- Petitioner Versus Food Corporation of India and others ---- Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr. RP Kansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ashutosh Mohunta, J. Challenge in this writ petition is to the orders Annexures P3, P4 and P5. While serving as Manager in District Patiala, the petitioner was charge sheeted on the ground that he did not discharge his duties with absolute integrity and due devotion inasmuch as 3584 serviceable and 450 unserviceable wooden crates were found short as per the counting. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Regulation 56 of FCI ( Staff) Regulations, 1971 and vide order Annexure P3 the petitioner was held responsible for not verifying the position of wooden crates. It was held that at no stage the petitioner reported the matter with regard to shortage of wooden crates and hence there was lack of supervision on his part. Penalty of Censure besides token recovery of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed upon him. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was rejected vide CWP No. 16049 of 2008 2 order Annexure P4 by the Executive Director (acting as the Appellate Authority). Subsequently the review petition filed by him was also dismissed vide order Annexure P5 passed by the Managing Director. Counsel for the petitioner has tried to raise the argument that the loss of wooden crates cannot be attributed to the petitioner, rather one K.S.Sodhi is responsible for the same. A perusal of the impugned orders shows that the petitioner has been held responsible for shortage of wooden crates. All the three departmental authorities have already examined this matter and have returned a finding of fact that the loss was caused due to lack of supervision on the part of the petitioner. In view of the categorical finding of fact recorded by three departmental authorities, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned orders. There is no merit in the writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. [Ashutosh Mohunta] Judge [Rajan Gupta] Judge September 10, 2008 `ask'