IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1027 of 2006 Date of Decision: January 19, 2009 Bhag Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS The Chairman, Food Corporation of India, New Delhi & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. R.K. Chopra, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Maninder, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Hari Pal Verma, Advocate, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was working as Assistant Grade-I whereas one Mr. G.C. Sharma was working as Assistant Manager who was higher in rank. The petitioner and Mr. G.C. Sharma, were both chargesheeted and under enquiry, both were held guilty. In the case of the petitioner, Senior Regional Manager was the Punishing Authority who awarded punishment of dismissal from service to the petitioner. The Punishing Authority in the case of Mr. G.C. Sharma was the Zonal Manager, Mr. Sharma CWP No.1027 of 2006 [2] being senior in rank at the point in time when the incident took place. Mr. G.C. Sharma was also dismissed from service. An appeal was carried to the Managing Director. In the case of Mr. G.C. Sharma, the appeal was rejected and punishment of dismissal from service was upheld. A review petition was carried. The review petition has been accepted in part in so much as his punishment has been reduced to stoppage of five annual increments with cumulative effect. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the action against Mr. G.C. Sharma was earlier in point in time and was required to be considered as a precedent in regard to the punishment in the case of petitioner. Dehors the said comparison and parity, appeal filed by the petitioner has been accepted in part by the Zonal Manager and the penalty of dismissal from service has been reduced to reduction in rank. Review petition of the petitioner has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even in the case of the petitioner, the penalty of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect should have been awarded as has been done in the case of Mr. G.C. Sharma. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that Mr. G.C. Sharma was working in supervisory capacity and was over-all incharge. The nature of responsibilities of Mr. G.C. Sharma was CWP No.1027 of 2006 [3] different as against those of the petitioner who was the custodian of the stock. The petitioner was the person who was required to take adequate preventive measures for proper preservation/ health of the wheat stock stored. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working as Assistant Grade-I. Mr. G.C. Sharma was working as Assistant Manager, and therefore, was in supervisory capacity and was over-all incharge. The petitioner being the person who was required, on ground, to take adequate preventive measures for proper preservation/ health of the wheat stock stored, was directly involved and responsible for the loss caused which is of a huge quantity of wheat i.e. more than 7073 quintals. The authorities who have considered the case of the petitioner are different as against those who considered the case of Shri G.C. Sharma. No defect in decision making process has been pointed out. Violation of any statutory provision or rule has also not been pointed out. It is not in dispute that petitioner has been heard during proceedings. The capacity in which the petitioner and Mr. G.C. Sharma were working being different, no defect in decision making can be traced. Decision itself cannot be challenged as writ petition cannot be construed as an appeal. CWP No.1027 of 2006 [4] The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) January 19, 2009 JUDGE avin