CWP No.6188 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6188 of 2008 Date of Decision:11.4.2008 Joginder Ram ....Petitioner Versus Food Corporation of India and others ....Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: Shri Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. 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? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 13.2.2007 (Annexure P.12), whereby penalty of compulsory retirement from the services of the Corporation along with the forfeiture of his gratuity was imposed upon the petitioner by the Executing Director (North); and the order dated 18.1.2008 (Annexure P.14), whereby the appeal against the said order was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the charges of carelessness; negligence and not upkeeping the wheat stocks, are untenable against the petitioner as he was not the person responsible. It is pointed out that he was posted at Sat Pal Boor Chand Complex on 27.9.2000 i.e. much later than the stocks in dispute got damaged and therefore, the petitioner had been wrongly and illegally held guilty of the charges levelled. It is further pointed that as per the site inspection prepared CWP No.6188 of 2008 (2) by one Kesar Singh, District Manager (Quality Control) on 18.6.2001, Shri Om Parkash Sharma, AG-II was found responsible for the damage of the paddy. It has further been argued that many communications were addressed by the petitioner for fixation of responsibility on the custodians of the damaged stocks, but no action was taken and on account of such non-action, penalty cannot be imposed upon the petitioner. The arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are factual in nature and have been examined in extenso by the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer found that the wheat stocks in question got damaged due to negligence of custodians, namely, Sarvshri Narottam Puggal, AG.II (D) and Sh. Joginder Ram AM (D), the present petitioner, as they failed to protect the stocks from natural calamities and later on failed to arrange the segregating or salvaging of affected bags. The Inquiry Officer has concluded that nobody ever cared to save the stacks in question. The negligence and carelessness on the part of custodians has caused the damage of huge quantity of wheat stocks weighing 849.55 MT worth Rs.30,31,210.50. The defence is afterthought and is of no value. The Disciplinary Authority found that a Committee was constituted by the DM, Ferozepur to categorise wheat stocks of 2000-01 lying damaged at Sat Pal Boor Chand Open Complex. The Committee drew samples from the said stocks and got them analysed in the District Laboratory Ferozepur. The stocks were found in Feed-1, Feed-2 and Feed-3, Industrial Use and Manure category as per the details contained in Exhibit P.1. The Committee observed that the wheat stocks got damaged due to negligence of the custodians along with Joginder Ram, the present petitioner. CWP No.6188 of 2008 (3) It has been further found that the petitioner joined the Depot on 15.9.2000 and the wheat stocks of the crop year 2000-01 was received during April-May, 2000. Though, the petitioner informed the condition of the wheat stocks vide communication dated 30.9.2000 and 30.10.2000, Exhibit D.1/1 & 2(JR), but the site inspection report dated 2.11.2000 Exhibit D.1/7 clearly depicts the deplorable picture of the state of affairs indicating that no improvement had taken place at the storage complex and the petitioner remained a silent spectator. The petitioner has not brought out on record either during the inquiry proceedings or in his representation the efforts, if any, made by him to improve the condition of stocks and save the valuable wheat stocks from down-gradation to damaged category. It was found that due to the misconduct on the part of the petitioner for improper preservation, safety and security of the wheat stocks stored under his supervision, a huge loss of Rs.53.59 lacs has been caused and therefore, punishment as mentioned above, was imposed. Such order has been affirmed in appeal as well. The fact of petitioner's joining on 15.9.2000 and his failure to improve the condition of the wheat procured in April-May, 2000, has been examined by the learned Departmental Authorities. It has been found that the petitioner has remained a silent spectator and has not made any effort to improve the condition of wheat storage complex. In exercise of the power of judicial review, this Court will examine the illegality of the decision making process. The Court is not to examine the decision, but the process, which led to the said decision. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality or infraction of any Rules or instructions in conduct of the disciplinary proceedings. It is also not pointed out that any violation of CWP No.6188 of 2008 (4) principles of natural justice has been caused. The plea raised by the petitioner has been considered by the Inquiry Officer as well as by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. The stand taken by the petitioner has not been accepted. Therefore, we do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE 11.4.2008 ds