KULWANT KAUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Kulwant Kaur widow of Shri Kharaiti Lal, the deceased employee, has filed the instant petition for quashing the order dated 13.9.2006 (Annexure P-1), passed by respondent No. 2, whereby services of the deceased employee were terminated and recovery of Rs. 46,500/- with interest @ 11.5% per annum with effect from 1.1.1996 was imposed. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 30.4.2007 (Annexure P-2), passed by respondent No. 2, whereby total amount of Rs. 1,06,060/- (Rs. 46,500/- as principal amount, Rs. 57,226/- as interest @ 11.5% per annum from 1.1.1996 to 13.9.1996 and Rs. 2,334/- on account of wheat loan and cash payment) was found due towards the deceased employee and after adjusting the entire amount of his gratuity i.e. Rs. 94,327/-, the balance amount of Rs. 11,733/- has been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner.

(2.) In the present case, the deceased employee (Shri Kharaiti Lal) was working with the respondent Corporation as Chowkidar (Security Guard) since the year 1980. In the year 1995-96, he was posted at Naraingarh Selling Centre under the Farmer Service Centre, Ambala. It is the case of the respondent Corporation that the deceased employee was posted there as Caretaker of Naraingarh and Mullana Godowns. It is alleged that while he was working as Caretaker at Mullana Godown, he did not account for 100 DAP fertilizer bags. It is alleged that he had embezzled those bags, the value of which was Rs. 46,500/-. It is the case of the petitioner that actually, the deceased employee did not misappropriate or embezzle any amount of sale proceeds of the DAP fertilizer bags. In this regard, a preliminary enquiry was conducted in the year 1996 itself, wherein the Enquiry Officer found that no amount of sale proceeds of the DAP fertilizer bags was embezzled by the deceased employee at Sale Centre, Naraingarh. However, it was found that he had violated the instructions of the DM, FSC, Ambala by selling the goods on credit basis on slips on 2-3 days credit basis at his own risk. Copy of the said enquiry report has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-3. It is further case of the petitioner that on the basis of the said preliminary enquiry report, no further action was taken, but in the year 2002, a charge sheet was issued to the deceased employee for embezzling 100 DAP Fertilizer bags, to which he filed a detailed reply. Not satisfied with the said reply, a departmental enquiry was ordered by the respondent Corporation. The Enquiry Officer submitted the report against the deceased employee on 28.12.2005. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 21.2.2006 was issued to him, to which he filed a detailed reply, but without considering the said reply, the impugned order dated 13.9.2006 (Annexure P-1) was passed, whereby services of the deceased employee were terminated and recovery of Rs. 46,500/- with interest @ 11.5% per annum with effect from 1.1.1996 was ordered. It is further case of the petitioner that against the said order, the deceased employee filed appeal, but before his appeal could be decided, he unfortunately died. Thereafter, the order dated 30.4.2007 was passed, whereby it has been ordered that an amount of Rs. 1,06,060/- (Rs. 46,500/- as principal amount, Rs. 57,226/- as interest @ 11.5% per annum from 1.1.1996 to 13.9.1996 and Rs. 2,334/- on account of wheat loan and cash payment) is recoverable from the deceased employee and after adjusting the entire gratuity amount of the deceased employee, an order was passed to recover the balance amount of Rs. 11,733/-. Consequently, a notice for recovery of the said amount was issued to the petitioner, being widow of the deceased employee.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner argued that a perusal of the impugned order of punishment (Annexure P-1) shows that the said order was passed only on the basis of the fact that the deceased employee had admitted his fault during the course of hearing. He submitted that the reply to the show cause notice given by the deceased employee was not considered at all. He further submitted that after the death of the deceased employee, the appeal filed by him against the order of punishment was also dismissed and decision of the same was communicated to the petitioner on 15.10.2007. Learned counsel contended that the punishing authority was not justified while ordering the recovery of an amount of Rs. 46,500/- with interest @ 11.5 per annum from 1.1.1996 till the date of death of the deceased employee. He further contended that the deceased employee was working as Security Guard and he had nothing to do with the sale of the fertilizer. He submitted that even the appellate authority has not properly considered the grounds taken in the appeal and has confirmed the order of punishment on the ground that the deceased employee had agreed to pay the amount of Rs. 46,500/- to the respondent Corporation by instalments.