AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Surya Kant, J.
[1]. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 1492 and 1670 of 2010 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the cases. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 1492 of 2010. The petitioner was an Inspector Grade-I in the respondent Corporation. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 31.12.2003 [Annexure P-1] containing the following charges:-
He, while being posted at PUNSUP Centre, Jagraon, misappropriated Corporation''s 70426 bags of wheat weighing 35647-43-800 quintals for personal use with mala-fide intention, the price of which comes to Rs. 3,09,28,128.38 without interest and this amount is liable to be recovered from him along with co-officers/employees.
He misappropriated Corporation''s 79 bags plus 269 bags for personal use with mala-fide intention, the price of which comes to Rs. 7,99,356.90 without interest and this amount is liable to be recovered from him along with co-officers/employees.
He gave charge of bardana to the tune of 4825 bags in damage condition at Jagraon Centre, the price of which comes to Rs. 96,982.50 without interest and he is responsible for this loss along with co-officers/employees and this amount is liable to be recovered from him.
He while being posted at Jagraon Centre, did not preserve the wheat stocks in a proper manner due to which the wheat stocks for the Crop Year 2001-02 and 2002-03 got deteriorated/damaged. Due to delivery of stock, the Corporation was to suffer financial loss for which he is responsible.
He by not giving the record/ledger pertaining to wheat and bardana of Jagraon Centre to PV Officers and Audit Officers destroyed the same.
He made a fake entry in stock ledger P.S.C.S.C.-24 at page 23 on 4.6.2002 of wheat special to the tune of 19926-92-180 quintals for the Crop Year 2001-02 by reducing the same for the purpose of getting physical verification and after physical verification, he again got entered this wheat in the stock ledger on 01.07.2002 and accordingly, he kept the PV Officer in dark regarding shortage of wheat and concealed the truth.
As per above, out of the recovery amount of Rs. 3,09,28,128.38 + Rs. 7,99,356.90 + Rs. 96,982.50 = Total Rs. 3,18,24,467.78, he is responsible for the recovery of Rs. 1,52,75,744.53 @ 48% and in future interest @ 15% on this recovery is liable to be recovered from him.
The basis of above charges are the enclosed detail of charges, List of witnesses and record
[2]. The petitioner''s reply to the charge-sheet was found unsatisfactory and a regular inquiry was held in which the petitioner was found guilty of embezzlement/misappropriation of the Corporation''s funds along with his associates to the tune of Rs. 3,18,24,467.78. The inquiry report was accepted after supplying its copy to the petitioner and on further consideration of the petitioner''s objections against the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed him from service vide order dated 06.07.2005 [Annexure P-3] besides ordering recovery of 1/3rd of the total loss caused to the Company, i.e., Rs. 1,52,75,744.53. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal which was also turned down by the Chairperson-cum-Appellate Authority of the Corporation vide order dated 15.02.2007 [Annexure P-5]. Still aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.
[3]. The respondent Corporation has filed its reply/affidavit reiterating that the petitioner along with his associates caused heavy losses to the tune of Rs. 3,18,24,467.78 to the Corporation, hence punishment of dismissal from service along with proportionate recovery is fully justified.
[4]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
[5]. It is urged by his learned counsel that the petitioner served the Corporation for more than thirty years but the length of his service has not been kept in view while awarding the severest punishment of dismissal from service. It was argued that a recovery suit has been instituted against the petitioner by the Corporation and the impugned action is likely to prejudice the petitioner''s defence in the said civil suit. It was also alleged that the petitioner was denied assistance of a co-employee in the inquiry proceedings due to which serious prejudice was caused to him. Learned counsel also contended that relevant records were not supplied to the petitioner during the course of inquiry. The action of the respondents is also claimed to have violated the doctrine of double-jeopardy.
[6]. In my considered view, none of the contentions merit consideration and are liable to be rejected. With reference to the first plea that the punishment awarded is disproportionate or it ignored the length of the petitioner''s service, suffice it to observe that misappropriation or embezzlement are the grossest misconduct committed by an employee in flagrant breach of the trust posed in him by the employer. The punishment of dismissal for such like misconduct can hot be termed excessive or arbitrary. The contention that the disciplinary proceedings might prejudice the petitioner in the pending recovery suit is also misconceived for the reason that the Civil Court shall have to decide the issues framed by it on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties. The findings recorded in a domestic inquiry are not binding on the Civil Court. As regard to the plea of violating the principles of natural justice, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that assistance of a co-employee was offered to the petitioner which he declined to accept. In any case, it is not the case of the petitioner that the Presenting Officer representing the Corporation had any legal background. The inquiry proceedings were essentially based upon the records maintained in the godowns/storages with which the petitioner was fully conversant. Adverting to the last plea, suffice to observe that the petitioner has no where alleged that he wanted to summon any particular record or his prayer in that regard was declined by the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner could summon the relevant records of the Corporation in his defence evidence, if so wanted. He can not be permitted to raise such like hyper-technicalities at this belated stage. The contention that the punishment of dismissal from service amounts to ''double jeopardy'' is wholly misconceived and contrary to the settled principles. It is the conceded position that the Corporation has adopted and it follows the Punjab Civil Service [Punishment and Appeal] Rules, 1970. The recovery of pecuniary losses caused to the State exchequer is one of the minor punishment defined under Rule 5[3] of the Rules ibid, whereas ''dismissal'' from service is a ''major punishment''. No provision in the Rules has been brought to my knowledge mandating that only one punishment can be imposed. If the nature of charges warrants imposition of more that one punishments, it can not be termed as a case of ''double jeopardy''.
[7]. Otherwise also, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner will have to be viewed from the angle of scope of interference by a writ court in domestic inquiry. Suffice it to say that this Court cannot act as an appellate authority over the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer or those of the Disciplinary Authority in the domestic inquiry. The writ Court would be justified in interfering in such like cases where the disciplinary action is founded upon perverse findings in the inquiry or where evidence led by the Department, even if taken as a gospel truth, does not ex-facie make out any misconduct. That being so, no interference in the impugned orders is called for by this Court. For the reasons afore-mentioned, I find no merit in these writ petitions and the same are dismissed. Dasti.