RAM SAWRUP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order, above mentioned two Civil Writ Petitions are being disposed of in the light of common question of law and similar facts involved. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being extracted from CWP- 26704 of 2015 titled as Ram Sawrup vs. State of Haryana and others The grievance which is being raised by the petitioner is that vide order dated 05.10.2015 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner has been held liable for the recovery of sum of Rs.13,55,331/- on account of less gain given by the petitioner at the time of storage of wheat. While challenging the order of the punishment of recovery the petitioner is also challenging the show cause notice dated 26.3.2015 (Annexure P/6) issued to the petitioner in pursuance to which, the impugned order dated 05.10.2015 (Annexure P/1), was passed.

(2.) The facts as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent-Corporation on 13.05.1980 as Storekeeper. He continued working as such, till he attained the age of superannuation and retired on 28.02.2015. While the petitioner was in service, a charge sheet dated 12.11.2014 (AnnexureP/2) was served upon him, wherein certain allegations of negligence and causing loss to the respondent-Federation were levelled. Though, the reply to the said charge-sheet was filed by the petitioner, but the same was found to be unsatisfactory and an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry. After conducting an enquiry, Enquiry Officer gave his report dated 09.01.2015 (Annexure P/4) wherein, the charges against the petitioner were proved. Enquiry report along with show cause notice served upon the petitioner on 26.03.2015 and the petitioner submitted a detailed reply/representation (Annexure P7) to the said show cause notice on 27.04.2015. Ultimately, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 05.10.2015 (Annexure P-1) imposing punishment of recovery of sum of Rs.13,55,331/- which was 70% of the total loss. This order has been challenged by the petitioner before this Court in the present writ petition.

(3.) The grounds to challenge the said order as well as the charge sheet are that there were no rules and regulations at the relevant time under which an employee is to give excess wheat in respect of storage, which was under his charge and in the absence of any norms fixed for less gain, no allegation can be levelled against the petitioner that he caused loss and hence the resultant recovery order passed is bad in law and liable to be set aside.