IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.10408 of 2000 Date of decision : 31.03.2011 Raj Kumar Biala … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab. Permod Kohli, J. Petitioner was Assistant Food and Supply Officer at Batala Centre during the period 1982-85. He was served with a charge sheet dated 9.6.1989. The following charges were framed against him:- “1. While he was posted as A.F.S.O. at Batala Centre during the crop year 1984-85, the wheat stock of 3,88,803.41 Qtls. was dispatched under his supervision of the shortage of 5061.00.000 Qtls. occurred at the time final disposal of the wheat stock and he was responsible for the said shortage. 2. Apart from this the excess stocks given by him was not as per Government instructions and he was responsible for giving excess. 3. He has misappropriated the wheat stock stored at the Batala Centre along with other staff and due to this shortage of 5061 Qtls. occurred. Moreover, the excess given is not as per norms. Accordingly, he did not discharge his duties properly as a supervisor.” After seeking reply from the petitioner, an inquiry was instituted. Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry against as many as 08 officers including the petitioner. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, the Inquiry Officer has recorded the following findings:- “I have given a personal hearing to the said employee on 25.7.1995. The main contention of the said employee is that during the year 1983-84 there was excessively high rain and the crops were badly damaged with rain. The Government has issued instruction to dispose of the said stock on priority basis, but there was no movement CWP No.10408 of 2000 facilities available to dispose of the stock. After perusing the record and the contention raised by the appellant, it is found that although the stock was effected with rain but the employee did not take steps to protect the stock by administering medicines. Keeping in view the fact that the stock was rain effected, a relief of 50% is given to the employee and the balance amount any be recovered from them.” On receipt of inquiry report, the disciplinary authority has imposed a penalty of Rs.1,74,695.99/- to be recovered from the petitioner being 50% of the total loss of shortage. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority before the government. Appeal of the petitioner stands rejected vide order dated 12.1.2000. The appellate authority in his order recorded the following findings in respect to the petitioner:- “Sh.R.K.Biala, A.F.S.O. has stated that the rain effected stock was purchased from the Mandi which were not in his jurisdiction. The stock so purchased was badly effected with rains and were not fit for the storage. Even then this stock remained in the open for a period of 3 years. During the period all steps were taken to protect the wheat stock. The shortage in the wheat stock was bound to come on as this was badly effected with rain. No medicines were available to protect the rain effect steps, nor any steps were taken by the H.O to dispose of the stock, therefore, he has prayed that the recovery imposed on him may please be quashed.” The orders of the disciplinary authority and that of the appellate are under challenge in the present petition. The entire argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Inquiry officer has recorded the finding without any material on record. He has referred to some statements which have been noticed by the disciplinary authority. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is required to be rejected on the simple ground that the enquiry report is not under challenge. Therefore, the Court has no benefit of examining the arguments whether the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer are perverse or based upon some material on record. Insofar as the disciplinary authority is concerned, he has returned a finding that the petitioner has failed to protect the stock by administering the medicine. In other words, he has failed to exercise his supervisory jurisdiction. He has not disputed this fact that he had an obligation to exercise the supervisory control over the stocks. Under these circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to interfere with the order of the disciplinary authority and that of the appellate 2 CWP No.10408 of 2000 authority. It is a settled law that High Court does not sit as a Court of Appeal while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. There is no violation of principle of natural justice or any rule warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. ( Permod Kohli ) Judge 31.03.2011 sd 3