BALJEET SINGH Vs. HARYANA DAIRY DEVELOPMENT CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 20.11.2013 and 21.11.2013 (Annexure-P-11 and P-14 respectively) as well as order dated 11.10.2013 (Annexure-P-9), passed by respondent No. 3, ordering recovery of loss caused by the petitioner on the basis of inquiry report dated 31.12.2004 (Annexure-P-1). Also challenged in the present writ petition is to the order dated 17.10.2014 (Annexure-P-18), passed by the appellate authority, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. Mandamus is also sought for direction of release of all the terminal/retiral benefits with effect from 2.11.2001 when the resignation of the petitioner was accepted alongwih interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The petitioner also seeks the quashing of the inquiry report dated 31.12.2004 (Annexure-P-1).

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as a Milk Procurement Assistant with effect from 13.1980. He submitted voluntary resignation on 27.10.2001 with effect from 11.2001. The petitioner thereafter despatched another letter dated 31.10.2001 withdrawing the resignation. The petitioner claims that the said letter was received in the office of respondent No. 3 on 1.11.2001 i.e. before the date the resignation was to become effective, but the same has been shown to have been received on 5.11.2001. The petitioner also claims that vide ante dated order, his resignation was accepted with effect from 11.2001. The petitioner filed a civil suit against the order accepting his resignation. His civil suit as well as appeal have been dismissed and now RSA No. 518 of 2006, titled as Baljeet Singh v. Managing Director, Haryana Dairy Development Cooperative Federation, Chandigarh, is stated to be pending. The said controversy is not an issue before this Court. The petitioner claims that his retiral benefits were not released for about 12 years. He claims that after his resignation was accepted with effect from 11.2001, he was served with a chargesheet on 16.1.2002 for causing loss to respondent-department. The inquiry officer was appointed, who submitted the inquiry report on 31.12004 (Annexure-P-1) Thereafter, no action was taken on the said inquiry report. Thereafter, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 5.6.2013 (Annexure-P-5) upon respondents, claiming the release of leave encashment, gratuity, salary for October, 2001 and part of November, 2001, remitted amount to LIC, Karnal, pension payable under the EPF Pension Scheme alongwith interest. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP No. 17984 of 2013, titled as Baljeet Singh v. Haryana Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Limited and others, before this Court, which was disposed of by Single Bench, vide order dated 19.8.2013 (Annexure-P-6), directing respondent No. 2 to decide the legal notice dated 5.6.2013 within a period of three months after receipt of certified copy of the order. It was thereafter that respondents issued a show cause notice dated 11.10.2013 (Annexure-P-8), intimating him that in the inquiry report submitted on 31.12004, he was held guilty of the charges mentioned in the show cause notice and that he has caused loss to the tune of Rs. 1,04,955.57 and why the said loss be not recovered from him? Vide order of the same date i.e. 11.10.2013 (Annexure-P-9) and after withholding the said financial loss, the balance amount of gratuity was ordered to be released. Against the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted the reply dated 30.10.2013 (Annexure-P-10). Thereafter, in compliance with the order passed by this Court in CWP No. 17984 of 2013, the speaking order dated 20.11.2013 (Annexure-P-11) was passed, whereby the claim made in the legal notice dated 5.6.2013 was declined. Vide orders dated 21.11.2013 (Annexures-P-12 and P-13), passed separately, the sanction was granted for release of leave encashment to the tune of Rs. 53,092/- and gratuity to the tune of Rs. 1,36,645/-. Regarding the departmental proceedings, order Annexure-P-14 was passed on 21.11.2013 itself, whereby the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,04,955.57 caused to respondent-organization was ordered to be recovered from the terminal/retiral benefits of Baljeet Singh (petitioner). Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal (Annexure-P-16) against the said orders, which was dismissed, vide impugned order dated 17.10.2014 (Annexure-P- 18). The petitioner claims that the inquiry could not be held against him after he has submitted resignation and that the inquiry is also illegal. He seeks the quashing of the inquiry report. He also claims that the financial loss is illegal and that he is entitled to all the terminal benefits alongwith interest, which were released only after 12 years of his retirement.

(3.) In the written statement, respondents have taken the stand that the resignation of the petitioner dated 27.10.2001 was accepted to be effective from 2.11.2001. At the time of tendering resignation, a preliminary inquiry was underway for certain acts of omission and commission committed by the petitioner. Therefore, on the basis of preliminary inquiry, a chargesheet was served upon the petitioner, vide memo dated 16/18.1.2002. The petitioner filed the reply to the same, which was found unsatisfactory and a departmental inquiry was conducted, in which he was found guilty of causing financial loss to respondent-department to the tune of Rs. 1,04,955.57. On the basis of said inquiry report, it was decided to recover the loss from the retiral benefits, vide Headquarters letter No. 9589, dated 27.2008. It was also stated that the petitioner had challenged the letter dated 31.10.2001, vide which his resignation was accepted. His civil suit was dismissed and his appeal was also dismissed. The RSA is stated to be pending before this Court. The filing of the previous writ petition and passing of the impugned orders of recovery of loss is not denied. Respondents have justified their action.