CWP No.6970 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 28.10.2010 Ram Pal Chauhan ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.SS Dinarpur, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.RD Sharma, DAG, Haryana for respondents no.1 & 2 Mr.Pardeep Solath, Advocate for respondent no.3 Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) Keeping in view the controversy involved and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of at motion stage itself. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the Haryana State Cooperative Development Federation Ltd. in the year 1968 and was CWP No.6970 of 2009 2 promoted to the post of Store Keeper in the year 1974. He retired from service as Assistant Manager (Sales) on 31.8.2005. In the year 1976, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 6.5.1976 (Annexure P-1) on certain allegations of embezzlement and shortage of stock, while working as Store Keeper. A charge-sheet dated 9.8.1976 (Annexure P-2) was served upon him which was followed by additional charge-sheet dated 21.10.76 (Annexure P-3). A departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner. Despite that, the disciplinary authority did not pass any final order. The petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing CWP No.2433 of 1984. A Division Bench of this Court passed an interim order dated 13.7.1984 on the basis of statement of counsel for respondents that the decision shall be taken on the report of the enquiry officer dated 25.11.1981 on or before 14.8.1984. The Managing Committee of the Haryana State Cooperative Development Federation Ltd. in its meeting held on 13.8.1984 accepted the enquiry report and exonerated the petitioner of all the charges. Besides this, his suspension period was also treated as on duty for all intents and purposes, as is evident from resolution (Annexure P-5). In view of the aforesaid resolution of the Managing Committee, the writ petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 16.8.1984 as infructuous. The petitioner was again served with show-cause notice dated CWP No.6970 of 2009 3 10.2.94 (Annexure P-7) for recovery of an amount of Rs.14,653.23 allegedly on account of shortage in stock. He was asked to explain. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice. It appears that without considering the same, an order dated 27.6.2005 (Annexure P-8) came to be passed by the Managing Director asking the petitioner to deposit the amount on the basis of the audit report for the alleged shortage during the period the petitioner was serving as Store Keeper. After calculating the interest, the total amount to be recovered from the petitioner was Rs.92021.00. This amount was further re-calculated and an amount of Rs.1.00 lac was recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner as is evident from Annexure P-9. These orders are under challenge in the present writ petition. The principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner having been exonerated of all the charges of alleged shortage/recovery, subsequent orders for recovery are not sustainable in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that subsequent proceedings relate to the same charges for which the petitioner was exonerated and disciplinary authority accepted the enquiry report and passed the resolution completely exonerating the petitioner of all the charges. This fact is admitted by the respondent no.3 in para 7 of the reply. It is thus established that subsequent proceedings relate to the same charges for which the petitioner was exonerated not only by the Enquiry Officer, but CWP No.6970 of 2009 4 even by the disciplinary authority. Even the period of his suspension was treated as on duty. In view of exoneration of the petitioner in the year 1984 in earlier proceedings, now recovery after a period of almost 24 years on the same charges is totally illegal and unwarranted. Consequently, this petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 27.6.2005 (Annexure P-8) and 20.1.2009 (Annexure P-9) are hereby quashed. Keeping in view the nature of proceedings initiated by the respondent, respondent no.3 is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs to the petitioner. Needless to say, the amount recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner will be refunded to him alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum within a period of one month, failing which the rate of interest shall be 9% per annum. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 28.10. 2010 MFK CWP No.10585 of 2010 5