Civil Writ Petition No.12816 of 2009 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: August 01, 2011 Paramjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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.Jitender S. Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was posted as Sub Inspector in Food and Supplies Department. The Department had entered into an agreement on 22.10.2001 with respondent No.3- M/s Krishna Rice Mill, Gondapur, Mustfabad, District Yamuna Nagar for milling 2500 metric tonne paddy. As per the agreement, respondent-Mill was issued 15429.50 quintals paddy including 13121 Grade-A and 2299.50 quintals common variety of paddy. The said firm was to deliver 68%, i.e., 8922.28 quintals of Grade-A sella rice and 15663.66 quintal of common sella rice upto 28.2.2002. The said firm, however, delivered only 4671.70 quintals of Grade-I CMR to F.C.I. Civil Writ Petition No.12816 of 2009 : 2 : upto 28.2.2002. During extended period, the said firm delivered 983.94 quintals of sella Grade-A rice upto 10.5.2002. The Mill still, however, was given cheque of ` 35.00 lacs on account of balance and interest in the name of respondent No.4 as per the agreement. The cheque bounced and thereafter the Department had to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Because of lapses on the part of the petitioner, he was issued a notice for initiating proceedings under Rule 7 of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987. The Enquiry Officer was appointed, who conducted a regular enquiry. The enquiry was completed on 14.3.2006. The petitioner has specifically pleaded that the Enquiry Officer has exonerated him of the charges levelled against him. No doubt, the charges of misappropriation of unripe rice of Rs.19.98 lacs or connivance as alleged against the petitioner have not been held proved. Still, the petitioner has been held liable to pay for the amount of interest as per the report of Enquiry Officer and he was asked to submit his reply within 30 days. The petitioner submitted his reply when the impugned order directing recovery of 39% of the total loss of interest amount of ` 6,48,000/- was directed to be recovered from the petitioner. The appeal was dismissed on 21.7.2008. Pleading that the Arbitrator has already awarded interest and which has been ordered to be recovered from respondent No.3, the petitioner has approached this court alleging that interest, as ordered to be recovered from the petitioner, would be unfair. The petitioner has clearly averred in his petition that he was exonerated by the Enquiry Officer. In fact, the notice of motion Civil Writ Petition No.12816 of 2009 : 3 : was issued by noticing this contention that the petitioner was exonerated of the allegations made in the departmental enquiry and without recording dissent note, he was saddled with the responsibility to pay interest, which had already been recovered from the Miller. Reply has been filed and the case is ripe for arguments. At the outset, counsel for the petitioner prayed for permission to place on record the replication. The counsel was apprised that in case there would be any need to see any facts required to be contradicted, the replication would be considered. At the outset, the counsel was also asked whether the petitioner was exonerated by the Enquiry Officer when he confirmed the same in an affirmative. This fact was disputed by the State counsel. The enquiry report, Annexure P-3, is perused. The petitioner has clearly been held responsible for the negligence so far as charges 4 and 5 are concerned and the plea raised by the petitioner that he was exonerated, thus, is misleading. Otherwise also, I have perused the reply filed in this case which would reveal the real role, which, the petitioner had played in this episode leading to a substantial loss to the department. As per the reply, the petitioner was posted as Sub Inspector, Food & Supplies at P.R.Centre, Mustafabad. The quality of paddy given for shelling as per the agreement is disclosed in the reply. The Miller had in fact not delivered rice amounting to ` 19.98 lacs. After preliminary enquiry, the petitioner was prima-facie found responsible for misappropriation of the paddy in connivance with the Civil Writ Petition No.12816 of 2009 : 4 : other officials and the Miller. A decision was taken to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner for this conspiracy. He was accordingly served a charge-sheet. He, however, was not held responsible for misappropriation, but for negligence. In fact, the petitioner had violated the instructions dated 6.10.2000 and 8.10.2011 issued by the Headquarters. The petitioner was accused of having issued paddy without obtaining the bank guarantee from the firm. The petitioner had also failed to deliver the entire rice to the Food Corporation of India within the stipulated period and also upto the extended period. Thus, the petitioner was alleged to have caused loss to the State exchequer amounting to ` 19.98 plus interest due thereon. This was due to his negligence. As per the agreement, the petitioner neither delivered 100 metric tonne after every 5 days nor obtained bank guarantee from the Miller. It was the responsibility of the Inspectorate staff to watch the stocks of CMR as the entire stocks are in joint custody of the Miller and the department. It is on this basis, the petitioner has been held responsible and imposed this recovery of interest as part of penalty. There is no legal ground for interference in the impugned order, especially so when the petitioner has made clear attempt to mislead the court. A prayer for filing replication made after pronouncement of the order is declined. No reasons are disclosed by the petitioner as to on which aspect the petitioner would like to contradict the pleas. Dismissed with costs of ` 5,000/-, to be deposited in the accounts of Legal Services Authority, Haryana. August 01, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE