AMARJIT SINGH Vs. PUNJAB MANDI BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is employed as Mandi Supervisor -cumFee Collector with Market Committee Bilga. He impugns order dated 20.11.2013 (Annexure P -9), whereby, recovery of principal amount of Rs.30,68,647/ - alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. has been ordered against him for causing financial loss to Market Committee Ludhiana.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Auction Recorder at Market Committee Bilga. He was promoted as Mandi Supervisorcum -Fee Collector in the year 1986. He was taken on deputation by Market Committee Ludhiana as Mandi Supervisor and worked there from 1995 to 1999. During the deputation period at Ludhiana, he was alleged to have committed some irregularities. A vigilance enquiry was initiated on 27.09.2001. The Vigilance Bureau examined the accounts of Market Committee, Ludhiana from 1990 to 2000 and submitted its report on 11.1.2002. It recommended that proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 be initiated against the delinquent officials. In furtherance of the recommendations of the Vigilance Bureau, charge sheets were issued against the petitioner and five other delinquent officials pertaining to allegations of mis -conduct and embezzlement of public funds. As more than two officials were charge -sheeted under Rule 8 of the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Service (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1988, ( in short "1988 Rules"), disciplinary action was commenced by way of common proceedings by the Secretary, Mandi Board under the provisions of Rule 12 of 1988 Rules. The Chairman of the Board being the Competent Authority in respect of the highest charged official i.e. the Secretary, Market Committee, appointed Shri S.S. Lamba, (IAS retired) as Enquiry Officer, who submitted his enquiry report dated 1.7.2005, wherein, it was concluded that the allegations against the petitioner stood proved. It was recommended that an amount of Rs.30,68,647/ - alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. should be recovered from the petitioner. Thereafter, recovery notice dated 8.12.2006 (Annexure P -2) was issued calling upon the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.54,22,072/ - (Principal amount of Rs.30,68,647/ - + Rs.23,53,425/ - being interest @12% p.a. for six years) in the account of Market Committee Bilga.

(3.) THE petitioner filed CWP No.1308 of 2007 challenging the vires of Rule 5(iii) of the 1988 Rules which provides that recovery of any amount would be a minor penalty. He also challenged the notice /order dated 8.12.2006, vide which, he had been directed to deposit the amount of Rs.54,22,072/ -. In the written statement filed by the respondents in the aforesaid writ petition, it was stated that the impugned notice of recovery was given to the petitioner under Section 29 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961. (for short 'the 1961 Act''). However, it was conceded that before issuing the notice the procedure under section 29 of the 1961 Act had not been followed. The Counsel for the respondent -Board stated before the Court that they would provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and follow the procedure as prescribed under Section 29 of the 1961 Act and thereafter, if any recovery is to be made, a speaking order would be passed for recovery against the petitioner. In view of the statement, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents that the petitioner would appear before the authority and file his reply to the notice dated 8.12.2006 and thereafter, after following procedure the order of recovery, if any, be passed. It was also observed that if any adverse order was passed, it will be open for either the party to challenge the same in accordance with law.