CWP No. 2039 of 2011 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … CWP No. 2039 of 2011 Date of decision: February 3,2011 The Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. ..Petitioner. Versus The Registrar, Cooperative Societies,Punjab and others ..Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Manjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ... M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J.(Oral) Tersinessly, the brief facts, which needs a necessary mention, for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, are that Karamjit Singh son of Chuni Lal, (respondent no.3) had joined the service, as a Store-keeper, in the month of July, 1987 with The Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.(for brevity,”Milkfed”). His service conditions were governed by the provisions of Milkfed (Non-Common Cadre) Rules, 1985. 2. After his joining, he was working as a Store-keeper at the relevant time in Cattle Feed Plant, Ghania-Ke-Bangar, District Gurdaspur. A charge sheet (Annexure P-1) was issued to him for various acts of commission, omission, negligence and misconduct. He filed the reply, which was not found satisfactory and departmental inquiry was initiated and completed against him. 3. Taking cognizance of the inquiry report, the competent authority awarded him the punishment of stoppage of four annual grade increments with CWP No. 2039 of 2011 2 cumulative effect and an amount of ` 3,45,095/- @ 50 % of total loss of ` 6,90,190.82 caused to the Milkfed, was also ordered to be recovered from him vide impugned punishment order dated 10.8.2007 (Annexure P-2). 4. Aggrieved by the order (Annexure P-2), the respondent No. 3 filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the Appellate Authority, by way impugned order dated 1.9.2008 (Annexure P-3). 5. Dissatisfied with the impugned orders (Annexure P-2) and (Annexure P-3), the petitioner filed the revision petition, which was partly accepted by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies by means of impugned order dated 18.10.2010( Annexure P-6). 6. The petitioner-Milkfed did not feel satisfied and filed the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned order (Annexure P-6), invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition at this stage. 8. What is not disputed here is that, taking into consideration the total percentage of loss, over and above the prescribed exempted percentage, the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, has set aside the punishment order of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect, being on higher side by virtue of impugned order (Annexure P-6). The operative part of which is as under:- “I have examined the entire material on record and given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me. It is very clear that enquiry report regarding shortage of DORB given by 5 sectional heads and accepted by G.M. Has not found Karamjit Singh guilty for the losses. The main reason given by the G.M. In his letter to the M.D., MILKFED dated 24.10.02 is held that the losses have been calculated on the average of 1.20 % whereas the norm fixed by MILKFED for booking the losses is 1.5 %. This only proves CWP No. 2039 of 2011 3 negligence and not embezzlement on the part of Shri Karamjit Singh. Moreover, the arbitration case prepared against Shri Karamjit Singh has also been dismissed by the D.R.C.S., Gurdaspur. It was the duty of so many other officers who were supervising the work of Store Keeper for proper implementation of the letters and circulars issued by MILKFED for implementation of norms of handling loss at 1.5 % instead of 1.20 %. The punishment given of stoppage of 4 increments with cumulative effect is very much on higher side. Therefore, the petition is accepted. However,. Management is at liberty to pass fresh order keeping in view the inquiry report submitted by 5 sectional heads and comments of General Manager, Cattle Feed Plant, Ghania-Ke- Bangar.” 9. Meaning thereby, nothing adverse has been decided and liberty was granted to the management of the petitioner-Milkfed, to pass a fresh order of punishment. Therefore, the petitioner-Milkfed cannot possibly be term to be aggrieved by the impugned order in any manner as liberty was granted to it to pass a fresh punishment order. 10. In the light of the aforesaid reasons as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is dismissed as such. February 3,2011 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) nk JUDGE