IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.2811 of 2009
Date of Decision: February 24, 2009
Bant Singh
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
Food Corporation of India & Others
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - Mr. B.R. Gupta, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
. . .
AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
This civil writ petition filed under
Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India prays
for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing
Order dated 18/29.12.1999 (Annexure P-8) whereunder
penalty of reduction in Time Scale of Pay by one
stage for a period of one year with the stipulation
that earning increments would be started after
expiry of penalty period from the reduced stage of
pay, has been imposed. Subsequently, the petitioner
carried an appeal and revision which orders dated
23/26.7.2004 (Annexure P-10) and 18.1.2008 (Annexure
P-12) have also been challenged.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in
brief, states that the petitioner was transferred
CWP No.2811 of 2009 [2]
out of Patiala on 22.3.1994. Rice was despatched to
Hubli in Karnataka on 29/30.3.1994. On receipt of
Rice at Hubli, it was found that Rice contained
excessive percentage of discolouration, broken
grain, loose bran and it was dull in appearance. The
personnel at the destination i.e. consignee made a
complaint. An opportunity was given for joint
inspection by the persons who had despatched the
Rice i.e. at Patiala. None however availed of joint
inspection opportunity.
Be that as it may, the Enquiry Officer
exonerated the petitioner essentially on the ground
that he stood transferred before the date of
despatch. The Disciplinary Authority differed with
the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer,
however, after giving opportunity of being heard to
the petitioner, so that the petitioner could
persuade the Disciplinary Authority that findings
recorded by the Enquiry Officer in his favour are
correct.
Be that as it may, for reasons
recorded in the order, the Disciplinary Authority
imposed penalty on the petitioner as given out
above. Appeal and review filed by the petitioner
have also been dismissed.
It has been projected on behalf of the
petitioner that the petitioner was never given an
opportunity for joint inspection. On a specific
query of the Court to the learned counsel to show
CWP No.2811 of 2009 [3]
the ground taken in this regard, learned counsel has
been unable to point out any specific ground that
had been taken in this regard. Rather, the ground
taken is that the petitioner having been
transferred, was not required to be invited for
joint inspection.
The finding recorded by the
authorities is to the effect that the petitioner was
given opportunity to inspect for joint inspection. I
have also considered the fact that without doubt,
the petitioner alongwith others was incharge of
maintaining grain at Patiala which was found
deficient in quality. There is gap of just about 7/8
days in the date of transfer of the petitioner and
the despatch of rice to Hubli. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has not been able to point out any
defect in decision making process. Decision itself
is sought to be challenged.
After arguing for some time, learned
counsel for the petitioner states that the petition
may be dismissed as withdrawn.
Dismissed as withdrawn.
(AJAI LAMBA)
February 24, 2009 JUDGE
avin
