RAVI SHANKAR GARG Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court for quashing of the enquiry report dated 18.02.2012 (Annexure P -12) and the order dated 06.03.2013 (Annexure P -15), vide which recovery of Rs. 85,334/ - is sought to be effected from him along with 8% interest. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and three others in the year 1996. The enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 18.02.2012 after an inordinate delay. In the said enquiry, all four officers have been held responsible. The Junior Engineer, who was working under the petitioner, has since expired and two Executive Engineers, who were charge -sheeted and were found guilty along with the petitioner, have not been punished on the ground that they have retired from service. Petitioner has also retired from service and, therefore, no recovery can be effected from him. He further contends that the amount of interest imposed upon the petitioner on the recovery of Rs. 85,334/ - cannot be imposed as the delay was on the part of the department in concluding the departmental proceedings. He, thus, contends that the impugned order dated 06.03.2013 (Annexure P -15) cannot sustain.

(2.) THE contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been discriminated against vis   -vis other three employees against whom no recovery has been effected, cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that the Junior Engineer has already died and the two Executive Engineers, who were held guilty along with the petitioner, were found by the punishing authority in its order dated 06.03.2013 (Annexure P -15) to be not responsible for spoiling of the cement as the store where the cement was stored was maintained and was under the petitioner, who was the then Sub Divisional Officer, and Junior Engineer. The Sub Divisional Officer is primarily responsible for keeping proper care over the custody and handling of the Government store and, therefore, petitioner was held responsible for this negligence on his part. It, therefore, cannot be accepted that the petitioner has been discriminated against.

(3.) NOTICE of motion.