CWP No.19218 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP No.19218 of 2008
Date of decision: 11.11.2008
Sucha Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Punjab Agriculture University Ludhiana & others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. M.L. Saggar, Senior Advocate with
Mr. ABS Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Rajan Gupta, J.
The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the
nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 29th November, 2006,
Annexure P-7 whereby his two increments were stopped with
cumulative effect and recovery of Rs.1,86,625/- was ordered. The
petitioner has also prayed for quashing of order, Annexure P-13
whereby his appeal against the order Annexure P-7 was rejected. He
has also sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to refund
the amount already deducted from his salary.
It has been averred in the petition that the petitioner was
appointed as a Field Assistant on 30th October, 1972 in Punjab
Agriculture University, Ludhiana. The petitioner thereafter worked in
the said University in various capacities. In 2004, allegation was
levelled against him that he had not handed over the complete charge of
CWP No.19218 of 2008 2
the store to his successor while posted as Storekeeper in the Department
of Immunology on his transfer w.e.f. 29th October, 1997 and that a
shortage of articles worth Rs.1,86,625/- had been found therein.
Thereafter, Dr. S.K. Sodhi, Dean, College of Agriculture University was
appointed as the Enquiry Officer by the Vice Chancellor. The Enquiry
Officer conducted the inquiry and submitted his report on 22nd August,
2006 wherein he found that the allegation pertaining to handing over
complete charge of the store to his successor and shortage of
Rs.1,86,625/- stood proved. Thus, a show cause notice dated 15th
September, 2006 proposing penalty of stoppage of two increments with
cumulative effect and recovery of an amount of Rs.1,86,625/- was
proposed. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice.
However, after considering the same, order Annexure P-7 dated 29th
November, 2006 was passed directing stoppage of two increments with
cumulative effect besides recovery of an amount of Rs.1,86,625/-. The
petitioner preferred an appeal against the impugned order. The same
was rejected by the Board of Management in its meeting held on 22nd
July, 2008. The order, Annexure P-13 dated 7.8.2008 was thus
conveyed to the petitioner.
The petitioner has sought to impugn the order passed by the
Vice Chancellor and the Board of Management before this court through
this writ petition.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have
given a careful thought to the entire case.
CWP No.19218 of 2008 3
The counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the
documents Annexures P-14 & P-15. It has been contended that the
amount held recoverable from the petitioner is totally against the record.
Various entries in this regard have been referred to. The counsel has
contended that a perusal thereof would show that the findings arrived at
by the disciplinary authority are absolutely incorrect. It has been further
contended that the petitioner could not be held liable for alleged
shortage of articles to the tune of Rs.1,86,625/- as he had handed over
the stocks to his successor as would be clear from a perusal of Annexure
P-15. This apart, the petitioner could not be held liable for shortage of
Rs.43,019/- as the same was in respect of consumable items issued by
the petitioner on the indents of the officials and had been used by them.
A perusal of the order, Annexure P-7 shows that the
disciplinary authority considered the inquiry report submitted by the
Enquiry Officer and thereafter decided to impose the penalty of
stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and recovery of
Rs.1,86,625/-. All the pleas raised by the petitioner in this petition were
raised before the Enquiry Officer as well as the disciplinary authority.
A finding of fact was arrived at by the Enquiry Officer which was
considered by the disciplinary authority. The Board of Management
also considered the appeal filed by the petitioner and passed the detailed
order, Annexure P-13.
We thus find that the disputed questions of fact which have
been raised in this petition, cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction. All
CWP No.19218 of 2008 4
the pleas raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition are factual
in nature. The petition does not reveal infringement of any fundamental
constitutional or legal right of the petitioner. We thus do not find it a fit
case to interfere in the writ jurisdiction.
The writ petition is hereby dismissed.
(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)
JUDGE
November 11, 2008
‘rajpal’