IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4050 of 2009 Date of Decision : February 16, 2011. Janak Raj Middha .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Vivek Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab. Mr.Prem Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.3. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.1.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Department of Local Bodies, dismissing his appeal against the order dated 3.9.2007 whereby he has been held responsible to the extent of 1/3rd of the financial loss caused to the Nagar Council, Jalalabad in the matter of recovery of octroi duty from the Octroi Contractor and consequently a sum of Rs.1,06,204/- has been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner's retiral benefits including the gratuity. 2] The petitioner joined the Nagar Council, Jalalabad as a Superintendent on 29.11.2000 and retired on 31.5.2007 on attaining the C.W.P.No .4050 of 2009 2 age of superannuation. The petitioner was earlier served with a show cause notice dated 5.4.2004 seeking his explanation as to why action under Rule 10 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 be not taken against him for his failure to recover the amount of Rs.3,06,204/- from the Octroi Contractor of the Nagar Council, Jalalabad. The petitioner gave his explanation which was found unsatisfactory and the Director, Local Bodies, Punjab vide order dated 3.9.2007 held him and two other Octroi Inspectors responsible for not recovering the octroi amount of Rs.3,06,204/- of Nagar Council, Jalalabad from the Octroi Contractor. All the three officials were accordingly directed to compensate the Nagar Council proportionately. 3] The aggrieved petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Government which was partly accepted vide order dated 9.7.2008 (Annexure P-3) to the extent that instead of effecting recovery of 1/3rd amount of Rs.3,06,204/- from the petitioner, only 1/3rd amount of Rs.1,06,204/- was ordered to be effected from him. This order was passed on the premise that Rs.2.00 lacs deposited by the Octroi Contractor as a security stood forfeited. The Appellate Authority was apprised that the security amount of Rs.2.00 lacs had already been adjusted before fixing liability of the delinquent employees. The Appellate Authority accordingly corrected its order vide a subsequent order dated 23.1.2009 (Annexure P- 5) and dismissed the petitioner's appeal completely. 4] Still aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5] Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going C.W.P.No .4050 of 2009 3 through the impugned order, I do not find any ground to interfere with the same. It is true that the octroi contract commenced w.e.f. 1.8.2000 and the petitioner had taken charge as Superintendent of the Nagar Council in November, 2000, yet it does not absolve him of his responsibility as the contract period was still subsisting when the petitioner joined the Nagar Council. The Director, Department of Local Body, Government, Punjab, as well as the Principal Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Local Body Department have considered the petitioner's contention threadbare and have fastened the liability for more than one valid reasons. 6] No interference in these orders, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction by this Court is called for, except to observe that the petitioner would be entitled to seek refund of the deducted amount in case the Nagar Council succeeds in recovering the deficit amount from the Octroi Contractor. After deducting the amount of Rs.1,06,204/-, as directed by the authorities, if the petitioner is entitled to any retiral dues, the respondents are directed to release the same within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to claim interest @ 7% per annum. 7] Ordered accordingly. 8] Dasti. February 16, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE