HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.2922 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.03.2011 **** Ranbir Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. Punjab State Warehousing Corp. & Anr. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. BR Bansal, Advocate for the respondents ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner has retired from the post of District Manager from the respondent-Corporation. He was served with a charge-sheet while in service, inter alia, alleging misappropriation of 3784 serviceable wooden crates thereby causing financial loss of Rs.14,47,380/- to the Corporation. The petitioner submitted his reply/affidavit which was found unsatisfactory and based upon the departmental enquiry conducted against him, the Managing Director imposed a major penalty of recovery of the above- mentioned amount. The petitioner filed the departmental appeal which has been turned down by the Executive Committee-cum-Appellate CWP No.2922 of 2010.doc - 2 – Authority vide order dated 22.07.2009/08.09.2009 (Annexure P17) after observing that the petitioner was called for personal hearing which he failed to avail nor he produced any new record. The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court. (2). During the course of hearing counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon a communication dated 31.01.2002 (Annexure P3) regarding handing over/taking over charge of the dead stock articles. The contents of the said document appears to have been disputed by the Corporation. The petitioner now relies upon a departmental enquiry report conducted against one Prem Singh, District Manager and claims that the above-stated memo dated 31.01.2002 (Annexure P3) was found genuine in the said enquiry held against Prem Singh, District Manager. (3). Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at some length and on perusal of the documents on record, I am of the considered view that though the question of fact raised hereinabove cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, nevertheless, it would be consistent with the principles of fair play if the petitioner is given one more opportunity of personal hearing by the Executive Committee/Appellate Authority so that the CWP No.2922 of 2010.doc - 3 – genuineness of the memo dated 31.01.2002 can also be proved by him, if so required. (4). Suffice it to observe that the Appellate Authority alone would be in a position to appreciate the above-stated contention. (5). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed in part to the extent that the order dated 22.07.2009/08.09.2009 (Annexure P17) of the Appellate Authority is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner’s appeal afresh after giving him an opportunity of personal hearing. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to avail the opportunity of personal hearing, the Executive Committee/Appellate Authority shall be at liberty to proceed and decide the appeal in accordance with law. It shall be appreciated if the petitioner’s appeal is decided within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 14.03.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge