Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kulwant Singh vs Food Corporation Of India And Others on 7 April, 2014
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Harinder Singh Sidhu
LPA No. 92 of 2013 (O & M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
*****
LPA No. 92 of 2013 (O & M)
Date of decision : 7.4.2014
Kulwant Singh ........Appellant
Vs.
Food Corporation of India and others ....Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu
Present:- Mr. Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the appellant
Mr. B.S. Walia, Advocate, for the respondents
---
Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
This appeal has been filed against an order dated 10.10.2012, dismissing CWP No. 20238 of 2012, filed by the appellant.
The writ petition was dismissed primarily on the ground of delay. It was noted that when order was passed in Review Petition in the year 2001, thereafter, second review petition was not competent and further that after filing second petition in the year 2002, the appellant slept over the matter and sent one letter in the year 2012 i.e. after about 10 years to the concerned authority to know about the fate of second review petition.
At that time, it was intimated in the month of August 2012 that his second petition was infructuous as filing of second review petition was not competent.
Kumar Ashwani2014.04.24 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No. 92 of 2013 (O & M) -2-
We are not convinced with the explanation offered by the appellant on the question of delay.
Be that as it may, we have heard counsel for the parties on merits as well.
It is on record that the appellant was Assistant Grade I (D) in the year 1992. He was assigned a task of getting rice loaded in the trucks. He was charged with the following allegations :-
"That the said Sh. Kulwant Singh, AG.I (D) while working at FSD, Amloh of Patiala District did not discharge his duties with due dedication, devotion and by maintaining absolute integrity in so much so he in connivance with other officials deliberately resorted to short loading with malafide intention in a rice special despatched Ex-Mandi Gobindgarh with stocks of Ami oh loaded on 13.6.1992 which was consigned to Erode wherein the consignee reported destination shortage of 755 qtls.50 kg."
It was specific allegation against him that there was discrepancy so far as weighment despatched and the receipt of the material was concerned. It was also found as a matter of fact, that at the destination, many bags were found cut and torn with opened mouth.
The Enquiry Officer went into the allegations and found him not guilty. The Punishing Authority disagreed with the order of the Enquiry Officer. Matter was looked into and during second enquiry, the Enquiry Officer concluded as under :-
"The CO, Shri Kulwant Singh, AG.I (Depot) posted at ARDC, Amloh and deputed for supervision/loading of said special cannot be held responsible for the shortages and other irregularities reported by the consignee. However, he is Kumar Ashwani 2014.04.24 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No. 92 of 2013 (O & M) -3- responsible, to that extent for the lapses/irregularities observed at the dispatching end on the weighbridge during loading of said special because of his non-attending/non- participation in the supervision work of said special."
It was found, as a matter of fact, that material was loaded in the Railway racks under supervision of the appellant and he was responsible for shortage and other irregularities reported by the consignee.
It was specifically stated that he was responsible for lapses/ irregularities observed at the time of despatching and during loading of the material because of his non attending/non participation in the supervision work of the said special.
The above said conclusion was given by noting that the appellant was deputed for supervising the loading of the material. The Punishing Authority in a detailed order, after noting various discrepancies in the weighments and also qua the loss caused to the material which was loaded in the Railway racks, rightly found that large number of bags, received at the destination, were cut and torn with opened mouth. By noting as above, it was rightly said that there was lapse at the time of loading of the material for which the appellant was responsible. After looking into the irregularities committed by the appellant, the Punishing Authority vide order dated 1.6.1996 imposed penalty of reduction of pay by 4 stages for a period of 3 years.
He filed a statutory appeal which was partly allowed and the punishment was modified to 'reduction of pay by 2 stages for a period of 2 years. It was further said that during pendency of penalty, the appellant would not get any increment.
Kumar Ashwani2014.04.24 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No. 92 of 2013 (O & M) -4-
The Appellate authority when passing above order on 27.6.2000 has observed as under :-
"I have gone through the contents of the charge sheet, inq. Report, penalty order, contents of the appeal and other related record in a careful manner, I have also afforded the personal hearing to the appellant in my chamber on 20.6.2000 which was attended by him. His recorded statement has been placed in the file. The appellant was mainly charge sheeted for his involvement in deliberate short loading in connivance with other staff in a rice special ex.Mandi Gobindgarh which invited shortage of 755.50.000 qtls. I find from the record that the destination has miserably failed to observe the mandatory provisions and produce basic documents which could establish the shortages in the stocks received at the destination, Ex.P1/36, 35, 34 and P1/33 remained un- confirmed and un-authenticated during the inq. proceedings. It has also been proved during the course of inq. proceedings that the prosecution failed to produce any witness from the destination and the charge of partial shortages remained not corroborated, it is also proved during the inquiry that Sh. Amarjit Singh, AG.III (D) and Labh Singh AG.III (D) were conducting the weighment at the weighbridge in the said special under the supervision of Sh. Kulwant Singh. The Inq. Officer has also concluded in his report that 'it can be derived that these lapses on weighbridge were not committed by the concerned staff deliberately with any mala fide intention and the same seem to have occurred due to operations handled by both AG.III (D) and the resultant confusion subsequently due to defect/misprint observed on the weighbridge card. However, the appellant is responsible to that extent for the lapses/irregularities observed at the despatching end on weighbridge during the loading of the said special'. I also agree with the findings of the Inq. Officer. In view of the Kumar Ashwani 2014.04.24 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No. 92 of 2013 (O & M) -5- above facts of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority seems to be a bit harsh. I feel, that the ends of the justice would be met, if a penalty of 'reduction in pay by two stages for a period of two years which will have the effect of postponing his future increment' is imposed."
By looking at the record, it was rightly noted that there was lapse in performance of duty, which resulted into loss to the department.
The appellant filed a statutory review petition, which was also dismissed by the competent authority vide order dated 14.12.2001. Perusal of Rule 74 of the Staff Regulations, 1971, as reproduced at Page Nos. 10 and 11 of the paper book, makes it very clear that there is no provision for filing of second review. However, the appellant filed second petition for review, which was sent to the competent authority by the Officer in charge where he was working.
It appears that the said application was ignored because it was not competent. Hence, it was not necessary for the authorities to pass any order thereupon. The appellant kept on waiting and woke up only after about 10 years and sent one letter in the year 2012.
In response thereto, he was intimated by a letter dated 1.8.2012 that he had already availed remedy of appeal and review. There is no provision of second review as per the Regulations 1971.
This Court feels that order passed was perfectly justified. By filing an application, which is not provided under the rules, limitation cannot be extended. Furthermore, on merits, we are satisfied that for the lapses committed by the appellant, punishment has rightly been imposed. Kumar Ashwani 2014.04.24 10:23
No ground is made out for interference in the order impugned. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No. 92 of 2013 (O & M) -6- Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
(Jasbir Singh) Judge (Harinder Singh Sidhu) Judge 7.4.2014 Ashwani Kumar Ashwani 2014.04.24 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document