AMRIK SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a retired Inspector Grade-I from the Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Punjab, questions the validity of order dated 16.3.2011, Annexure P6, whereby a recovery of Rs. 9,51,001/- has been directed against him.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner along with certain other employees was issued charge memo dated 19.5.2005 under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 levelling an article of charge that while serving at P.R. Centre, Bareta, a loss in the stock of wheat relating to crop year 2002- 2003 had been found upon physical verification having been conducted. Upon having found the reply furnished by the petitioner to the charge sheet as unsatisfactory, an Enquiry Officer was appointed vide order dated 30.6.2006. Enquiry report was furnished on 4.7.2007 in terms of which Shri Prem Chand Goyal, D.F.S.C. was exonerated but the petitioner as also one Jagsir Singh, Inspector Grade-I (since deceased) were found guilty. It is based upon such enquiry report that the Director, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Punjab has passed the impugned order dated 16.3.2011 holding the petitioner along with late Jagsir Singh to be responsible for loss quantified at Rs. 15,85,002/- and, accordingly, has apportioned 60% of such loss i.e. Rs. 9,51,001/- to be recovered from the petitioner. The balance 40% has been taken as "bad debts" on account of Jagsir Singh, Inspector, Grade-II having expired on 16.4.2009.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently argue that the enquiry findings returned against the petitioner are without any basis as the petitioner had been absent from duty from 1.1.2003 to 12.2.2004 and as such, could not have been made liable for any loss of stock of wheat stored at Bareta Centre for the year 2002-2003. Learned counsel would submit that the initiation of the departmental proceedings against the petitioner and which finally culminated in the passing of the impugned order was based on a physical verification of Bareta Centre conducted by Shri K.K.Kohli, D.F.S.O., Mansa on 25.4.2003 when the petitioner was not even present. Heavy reliance has been placed upon an order dated 9.2.2007 passed by the Director of the respondent-Department at Annexure P2 in terms of which after holding an enquiry, the petitioner had been found guilty of absence from duty from 8.2.2003 to 28.12.2003 and from 30.12.2003 to 12.2.2004 and, accordingly, for such period of absence from duty, the petitioner was imposed the punishment of denial of salary as also pensionary benefits. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the petitioner that once the Department itself has held the petitioner to be guilty of absence from duty for a particular period and having already meted out a penalty in this regard, the impugned order of recovery cannot sustain as the same is in relation to a charge of shortage of wheat stock for the same very period. Learned counsel has also adverted to the document placed on record at Annexure P3 dated 8.1.2003 in terms of which the petitioner had handed over the complete charge of Bareta Centre to Jagsir Singh, Inspector Grade-II, Bareta. It has been argued that the defence of the petitioner has been brushed aside by the Enquiry Officer without any basis.