OM PRAKASH LAKSHKAR Vs. MP STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by an order dated 18/6/2004 passed by the Managing Director, M.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation, Limited by which a punishment of recovery has been inflicted upon the petitioner.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that he was holding the post of Assistant Manager in the year 1997-1998 and was posted at Baradwar Mandi in Chhattisgarh. In has been further stated that during the paddy session purchases were made from the Mandi under Price Support Scheme and the paddy was stored in an open area and the same was lying in an open area for a period of about 8 months. The petitioner has further stated that as the paddy was lying in open area shortage in respect of quantity was detected and the petitioner was served with a show cause notice on 5/7/2001. The petititoner did submit a reply to the show cause notice and it was categorically stated by the petitioner that on account of heavy rains there is a loss in the quantity and also keeping in view the fact that the goods were lying in an open area the loss in quantity has resulted. The respondents after receiving reply of the petitioner have issued a charge sheet on 29/1/2009 and the charge levelled against the petitioner alleges that the petitioner has not stored the paddy properly. The contention of the petitioner is that the imputation of misconduct does not reflect that as to what misconduct, the petitioner has committed and the charge levelled against him a vague charge. The petitioner has further stated that a reply was submitted by him and thereafter, an Inquiry Officer was appointed and after enquiry he has submitted a detailed enquiry report. The Inquiry Officer has held the petitioner as well as one Manmohan Raghuvanshi Junior Assistant, guilty of the charge levelled against them. The petitioner has also stated that the Inquiry Officer has also observed in the enquiry report that on account of excessive rainfall there was a loss in the quantity of paddy stored by the Corporation. The Inquiry Officer has also observed that 2/3rd loss should be recovered from the petitioner and l/3rd loss should be recovered from Manmohan Raghuvanshi. The further grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent Managing Director, of the Corporation while passing the impugned order dated 18/6/2004 has ordered recovery of Rs. 3,85,833.40 against the petitioner only and one Manmohan Raghuvanshi who was also held guilty by the Inquiry Officer has been exonerated by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner has relied upon ajudgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of Bongaigaon Refinary & Petrochemicals Ltd. and others v. Girish Chandra Sarma (2007) 7 SCC 206. The contention of the petitioner is that in the light of the judgment delivered by the apex Court he cannot be made a scapegoat for collective decision in which others have also collectively participated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon ajudgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of Government of A.P. and others v. A Venkata Raidu (2007) 1 SCC 338 wherein the apex Court has held that the charge sheet should not be vague but should be specific.

(3.) Areply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 and 2 and it has been stated that the petitioner was an Assistant Manager and in-charge of the Mandi at the relevant point of time. The respondent have further stated that in identical circumstances a writ petition was filed before the principal seat at Jabalpur i.e. W.P. No. 3006/2003 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 23.8.2003 with a direction to the respondent Corporation to hold an enquiry in the matter and to recover the loss, if any, from the responsible persons. The respondents have further stated that the Inquiry Officer has held the petitioner guilty of the alleged misconduct and, therefore, as the petitioner was granted opportunity of hearing in the departmental enquiry, the question of setting aside the punishment order does not arise. It has also been stated in the return that against the order of punishment no appeal has been preferred before the Board of Directors and, therefore, as no appeal has been preferred, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this count alone.