IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 14213 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 11.09.2009 Kuldeep Singh and another ... PETITIONERS Versus Financial Commissioner (Cooperation) and Secretary to Government of Punjab, Cooperation Department, and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Ajay Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioners. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. Petitioner No.1 is serving as Field Officer in its Branch Office of MARKFED (hereinafter referred to as `the respondent Federation') at Raikot, District Luduiana, and petitioner No.2 has retired as Field Officer from the services of the respondent Federation on 31.1.2006, on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioners were charge sheeted on account of their negligence and non-maintenance of the wheat stock for the crop years 1993- 94 and 1994-95 at Branch Office, Ajitwal, and thereby causing a financial loss of Rs. 13,54,662.80 to the respondent Federation, in connivance with each other. The petitioners did not submit any reply to the said charge sheet. CWP No. 14213 of 2009 -2- Consequently, the disciplinary authority ordered for holding regular enquiry in the said charge sheet, and the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer was appointed as Inquiry Officer. After providing a fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioners to defend themselves, the Inquiry Officer submitted the report against the petitioners holding them guilty of the charges. Copy of the inquiry report was supplied to both the petitioners for making representation against the findings of the Inquiry Officer. A joint representation was filed by both the petitioners. After considering the same and providing personal opportunity of hearing, the disciplinary authority ordered for recovery of Rs. 13,54,662.80 with interest from the petitioners, on account of the loss caused by them to the respondent Federation, and imposed the penalty of stoppage of four annual grade increments of each of the petitioner with cumulative effect. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioners filed appeals before the Board of Directors and by taking a lenient view, the punishment of stoppage of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect was reduced to stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect and after re-calculating the amount of recovery was also reduced to Rs. 10,90,543.40 to be recovered from both the petitioners in equal shares. Against the said order, the petitioners filed revision petition under Rule 14 (d) of the MARKFED Common Cadre Rules, 1990 before the Additional Registration (Admn.) Cooperative Societies, Punjab. After hearing both the parties, the said revision petition was dismissed by the Revisional Authority, while CWP No. 14213 of 2009 -3- observing as under : “I have gone through the record placed on the file and arguments adduced by the learned counsels for the parties. The contention of the petitioners is that they cannot be held responsible for causing loss to the organization since the wheat stock in question was deteriorated due to natural causes and due to storing them on unscientific plinth. The petitioners, further, rely on another case – but pertaining to the crop of the same years i.e. 1993-94 and 1994-95, whereby the same petitioners were absolved and waived off of al the charges of having caused financial loss to the tune of over Rs. 72 lakhs and contend that they cannot be held responsible in the present case when the crops in question were same. On the other hand, the perusal of the file, including the impugned orders, reveals that the Inquiry Officer had sufficiently established the charges framed against the petitioners and the impugned punishing authority namely, the Managing Director, MARKFED had, after considering the representation submitted by the petitioners, vide order dated 10.10.2001, held them responsible largely on account of the fact that the primary responsibility lied on the petitioners being the custodians of the stock but in the present case they failed to exercise their duty. Further the impugned order refers to the findings of the Committee, constituted to assess the damage of wheat crop pertaining to the years 1993-94 and 1994-95, whereby it was pointed out that despite the issue of specific instructions by the district authorities to the petitioners here, the latter failed to take adequate steps to maintain the stocks properly. And, this aspect becomes more glaring when they failed to substantiate on the failure in movement of the stocks when some of the stocks CWP No. 14213 of 2009 -4- could in fact be moved. Further, as held by the impugned order, the petitioners also failed to utilize the specials given to them to load the stocks improper ratio so as to avoid damage to its constituents. On all these accounts, thus, the petitioners were held responsible. And, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents the petitioners cannot take benefit of findings of inquiry in another case and as such the contention merits no consideration. And in respect of contention that the impugned order dated 23.12.2005 conveyed vide order dated 27.12.2005 passed by not the Board of Directors but by the Managing Director hence improper, the perusal of the order reveals that it suffers no such irregularity or defect since the same was passed upon the intervention of the Board of Directors when an appeal was preferred by the petitioners before them. The petitioners have been sufficiently provided opportunity by punishing authority and the Appellate Authority and the impugned orders were rightly passed and as such, no interference is needed.” Against the said order, the petitioners filed second revision petition under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 and the same has also been dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, on 7.1.2008. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the aforesaid orders, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders, passed by the authorities below. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners were wrongly held responsible for CWP No. 14213 of 2009 -5- non-clearance of stocks on priority basis and for not maintaining the health of the wheat stocks. He further submits that major portion of the stocks, which was delivered to the FCI, was effected due to rain/floods, which was beyond the control of the petitioners, therefore, they were wrongly held responsible for the loss caused to the respondent Federation. Learned counsel further argued that the Technical Officers, who had to be present on the spot to look after the stock of the wheat, have not been charge sheeted and the entire responsibility has been put on the petitioners. In nutshell, the petitioners want to challenge the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, being perverse. In my opinion, this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction cannot interfere in the finding of fact recorded by the Inquiry Officer, which has been upheld by the various authorities, except on the ground that the finding is based on no evidence or is patently perverse or contrary to the evidence on the record. But there is no such thing in this case. The Inquiry Officer, after taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties, has recorded the finding regarding the loss caused by the petitioners to the respondent Federation. In the writ jurisdiction, the evidence cannot be re- appreciated. In this case, no procedural irregularity has been pointed out by the learned counsel. On the other hand, the petitioners have been provided full opportunity to defend themselves. Their each and every contention has been dealt with by the Disciplinary, Appellate and the Revisional Authorities. Thus, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned CWP No. 14213 of 2009 -6- orders, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. September 11, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE