HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.20688 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.02.2011 **** Surinder Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. Punjab State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. & Anr. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. RS Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Mamta Rai, Advocate for the respondents ***** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner joined the Markfed as Branch Officer and while posted at Nakodar he was served with a charge- sheet dated 02.08.1980, inter alia, alleging that he sold in excess 340 bags of wheat in connivance with some other officials. The petitioner denied the allegations but his reply having been found unsatisfactory a regular departmental enquiry was held. The enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty and accepting those findings, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the competent authority vide order dated 05.05.1982 (Annexure P2). The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal which CWP No.20688 of 2008.doc - 2 – was also dismissed on 1st September, 1982. Similar was the fate of his revision petition which was also turned down on 4th January, 1984. (2). The above-stated orders were not challenged by the petitioner before any forum and were allowed to attain finality. (3). Meanwhile, recovery proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act for the shortage of 120 bags of wheat. The Arbitrator under the Act though held the petitioner responsible for the said loss but on an appeal the matter was remanded and the Arbitrator vide his subsequent Award dated 31st March, 2003 (Annexure P4) held that the petitioner was not responsible for the shortage of the wheat bags in dispute. Based upon the said finding of the Arbitrator that the petitioner asserted his exoneration of the charges and sought re-instatement in service. The same having been declined by the competent authority vide order dated 24.01.2006 (Annexure P6) that the petitioner has approached this Court. (4). The question that arises for consideration is as to whether or not the challenge made in these proceedings is barred by the principle of delay and laches? (5). Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the record I am of the considered CWP No.20688 of 2008.doc - 3 – view that the writ petition suffers from inordinate delay and laches and is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. Suffice it to observe that the observations, if any, made by the Arbitrator in the subsequent recovery proceedings have no bearing on the conclusions drawn in the domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The fact that the petitioner allowed the grass to grow beneath his feet and did not challenge the appellate/revisional orders for 24 long years would be sufficient enough to dissuade this Court to interfere with even if the petitioner is assumed to have made out a case on merits. (6). Dismissed. 02.02.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge