KULDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (COOPERATION) AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed and the appeal is restored to its original number and taken up today for adjudication. LPA No.1415 of 2009

(2.) The appellants, out of whom appellant No.1 is a serving Field Officer and appellant No.2 is a retiree, were charge-sheeted on account of their negligence and non-maintenance of the wheat stock for the crop year 1993-94 and 1994-95 at Branch Office, Ajitwal, causing financial loss of Rs. 13,54,662.80/-. They did not submit any reply to the charge sheet. The regular inquiry was held in which opportunity was given to them to defend themselves, but they were held guilty of the charges. After obtaining the inquiry report, representation was made by them against the findings of the Inquiry Officer and after affording opportunity of hearing, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect and ordered recovery of Rs. 13,54,662.80/- along with interest from both of them.

(3.) In appeal, however, the Board of Directors reduced the punishment of stoppage of four annual grade increments to stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect and after recalculating the amount of recovery, it was reduced to Rs. 10,90,543.40/- which was ordered to be recovered from both of them in equal shares. The revision petition filed by the appellants in terms of Rule 14(d) of the MARKFED Common Cadre Rules, 1990 before the Additional Registrar (Admn.), Cooperative Societies, Punjab was also dismissed which led to the filing of second revision petition under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 which was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, on 07.01.2008. The appellants then filed the writ petition before this Court which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide his order dated 11.09.2009 against which the present appeal has been preferred.