L.P.A.No. 1047 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A.No. 1047 of 2010 Date of Decision:- 26.8.2010 P.S.Girn Appellant . VERSUS State of Punjab Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR. HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI. Present: Mr.Y.M.Bhagirath, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? RITU BAHRI,J. This Letter Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 21.7.2010 passed by Learned Single Judge. The petitioner had challenged the disciplinary proceeding as well as charge-sheet (Annexure P-2), summary of allegations (Annexure P-3) and order dated 11.1.1993 (Annexure P-5), appointing the Enquiry Officer and all further proceedings in L.P.A.No. 1047 of 2010 2 pursuant thereto. The petitioner was appointed as Sub Divisional Engineer in the Public Health Department in the State of Punjab. He was sent on deputation as Sub Divisional Engineer in the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Sub Division No.7, Ludhiana ( here-in-after referred to “ Board”) in the year 1983. While working in the Board, in execution of a contract, between the Executive Engineer, Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Division No.3, Ludhiana and Shri Ravinder Kumar, Contractor, the material for the work was provided by the Board. The petitioner was responsible for execution of this contract. The contract was to be completed by 14.3.1984. The petitioner was transferred back to the parent department on 30.4.1985. The contract was going on with the Board and the work could not be completed by the Contractor Shri Ravinder Kumar by 14.3.1984. The fact that the petitioner had issued excess material to the contractor despite the fact that the contract was not completed by 14.3.1984 came to light on 31.3.1986 and the final bill of the contractor was passed on 31.3.1986 itself and thereafter the arbitration proceedings had commenced and award was passed in L.P.A.No. 1047 of 2010 3 favour of the State Government in February, 1989. Thereafter, the disciplinary proceedings as well as the charge sheet (Annexure P-2), the summary of allegations (Annexure P-3) and the order dated 11.1.1993 (Annexure P-5) for appointment of the Inquiry Officer has been passed. The learned Single Judge after observing the above facts had dismissed the writ petition and held that there is no delay in issuing the charge sheet. Mr. Y.M.Bhagirath, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the appellant was not solely responsible for issuing the excess material to the Contractor. His argument is that the contract was time bound and release of the material was after verification by the Junior Engineer also. Vide annexure P-5 Inquiry Officer has been appointed. Vide Annexure P-11 the finding of the inquiry conducted against the petitioner has been submitted. It is specifically observed that the petitioner is liable for 25% of the total loss on account of release of excess material to the contractor. This finding has been given in view of the fact that the excess material was released to the contractor by the official holding collective responsibility. However, it was held that the Sub Divisional Engineer was expected to test/check a L.P.A.No. 1047 of 2010 4 reasonable proportion of measurement made by his subordinate. The Sub Divisional Engineer is, therefore, liable for a minimum of 25% of the total loss. In view of the finding of the Inquiry Officer, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is liable to be upheld. Accordingly,the Letter Patent Appeal is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR ) (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE JUDGE 26.8.2010 Anoop