Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajaib Singh vs The Punjab Mandi Board And Others on 19 March, 2012
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Jaswant Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA NO.745/2012(O&M)
Date of decision:19.3.2012.
Ajaib Singh
............Appellant
v.
The Punjab Mandi Board and others
.............Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh
Present:- Mr.JPS Sidhu,Advocate for the appellant.
Jaswant Singh,J.
CM No.2038-C/2012 seeking exemption to file certified copy of judgement dated 17.1.2011 passed by the trial court is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Since there is delay of 23 days in filing the instant appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, bearing CM No.2039-C/2012 has been filed for condoning the said delay. The application is accompanied by affidavit of the applicant/appellant.
For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by the affidavit and keeping in view the reasons stated therein which are just and sufficient, the application is allowed and RSA NO.745/2012(O&M) 2 delay of 23 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
CM No.2040-C/2012 has been filed under Order 41 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC for issuance of interim mandatory directions to respondents for the release of undisputed amount of withheld increment and 5% cut in pay.
RSA No.745/2012.
Plaintiff/appellant is in second appeal against the judgements and decrees passed by the courts below whereby his suit for declaration and mandatory injunction was dismissed by the trial court and in appeal, the findings were affirmed.
Plaintiff filed the said suit alleging therein that he was working as a Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector at Market Committee, Mansa. Administrator, MC Mansa imposed a major punishment by stopping his two increments with cumulative effect and 5% cut from his remaining pay vide order dated 23.7.1991 without holding any enquiry. Upon appeal, the said punishment order was set aside and a regular enquiry was ordered. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges against the appellant/plaintiff were not proved. However, the Market Committee did not agree with the report of the Enquiry Officer and reviewed the punishment order vide resolution dated 24.5.2000 whereby punishment of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect was imposed. It was thus claimed by the plaintiff that he was entitled to the arrears of two increments, which were withheld as per order of the Administrator, Mansa plus 5% pay with allowance RSA NO.745/2012(O&M) 3 alongwith consequential benefits and interest. It was further alleged that a notice under Section 31 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce M.C.Act,1961( for short 1961 Act) was served upon the defendants and since the reply was not satisfactory, hence the suit.
Upon notice, defendants 1 to 3 filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was alleged that plaintiff was held responsible for theft of mustard and Committee ordered 5% cut in his pay for suspension period and stoppage of two increments. Plaintiff represented for reconsideration of punishment imposed upon him. The committee, after reconsidering the matter vide resolution dated 24.5.2000, reduced the punishment to stoppage of one annual increment and it was further resolved that employees who caused the said loss would not be entitled to promotion. The appeal of the plaintiff was dismissed by the District Mandi Officer,Mansa vide letter no.8539 dated 27.2.2002. It was alleged that the enquiry against the plaintiff was rightly held and he was found responsible for having caused the said loss.
Defendant no.4-Administrator-cum SDO(Civil)Mansa, Market Committee,Mansa filed separate written statement alleging therein that some employees of the Market Committee, made a complaint against theft of market fee and rural development fund worth Rs.12,68,014/- and 6,34,007/- respectively by some employees of the market committee. On the basis of the said complaint, plaintiff was placed under suspension vide order dated 13.7.1989. In the meantime, RSA NO.745/2012(O&M) 4 District Mandi Officer, Bathinda held an enquiry and sent detailed enquiry report to Secretary, Punjab Mandi Board, Chandigarh wherein plaintiff alongwith others was found guilty and they were held fully responsible for the said theft and causing loss to the market committee to the tune of Rs.19,02,021/-. The plaintiff was charge sheeted and after considering his reply, punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect with 5% cut in his pay for the suspension period was imposed. Defendant no.1/Punjab Mandi Board, after considering the said punishment order, directed initiation of fresh enquiry against the delinquent officials whereupon fresh enquiry was conducted by Deputy District Mandi Officer, Sangrur (DDMO) who sent his findings to the Secretary, Mandi Board,Chandigarh. After considering the enquiry report, Secretary, Mandi Board directed the Market Committee, Mansa to initiate administrative action against the guilty employees and to calculate and recover loss from the employees. Thereafter, Market Committee, Mansa decided to reduce punishment from stoppage of two increment with cumulative effect with cut of 5% in pay for the suspension period to stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and also decided to restore cut of 5% in pay for the suspension period. It was alleged that this decision was taken by the Market Committee against the directions of the Secretary,Mandi Board, who has full power of superintendence and control over the market committee. It was alleged that this action of the market committee tantamount to violation of Section 33(2) of the 1961 Act. Not only this, RSA NO.745/2012(O&M) 5 it was further alleged that thereafter market committee,Mansa further amended its resolution dated 24.5.2000 vide resolution dated 9.8.2000 and decided to treat the suspension period of guilty employees as duty for all the purposes like pay, pension and gratuity etc. This action of the market committee was also dubbed to be against Punjab Civil Service Rules as plaintiff was not fully exonerated. It was further pleaded that a criminal case was also made out against the plaintiff but no such action was taken.
Plaintiff filed reply denying the allegations made in the written statements and reiterating his stand averred in the plaint.
On the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Both sides led evidence in support of their respective pleas. The learned trial court after hearing both sides and perusing the oral/documentary evidence available on record, vide impugned judgement and decree dated 17.1.2011 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved against the same, plaintiff filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the learned District Judge,Mansa vide impugned judgement and decree dated 11.8.2011. Hence the present second appeal.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant that while holding enquiry, the plaintiff was not afforded full opportunity as the records demanded by him was not produced and as such appellant had been prejudiced and findings were given on surmises and conjectures. It is further submitted that in the wake of reduction of punishment imposed upon the appellant, both the RSA NO.745/2012(O&M) 6 courts below have wrongly denied the planitiff the arrears of these with held increments alongwith 5% cut in pay.
After hearing the learned counsel, I find no merit in these submissions.
While dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, the learned trial court has found that against the impugned orders, plaintiff has already filed an appeal thus availing the legal remedy available to him under the Act. The factum of enquiry held against him by the District Deputy Mandi Officer,Sangrur was also admitted by him. He further admitted that Enquiry Officer had ordered stoppage of one increment. It was also admitted by the plaintiff that another case of recovery amounting to Rs.33,40,000/- was pending against him. In these circumstances, it was rightly held by the trial court that (i) plaintiff has already challenged the impugned orders imposing punishment upon him before appropriate forum;(ii) punishment has been imposed upon him after proper enquiry which has not been challenged by him in the instant suit; and (iii) admission on the part of the plaintiff prove that he caused major loss to the defendants and as such he could not claim that the punishment imposed upon him was wrong, illegal and discriminatory. While dismissing the appeal, the learned appellate court has observed that during his cross examination, the plaintiff has admitted with regard to stoppage of increment from the delinquent employees but nothing has been mentioned with regard to recovery of amount of loss caused to the defendants and thus on the basis of this admission, it was rightly RSA NO.745/2012(O&M) 7 inferred that plaintiff had caused a major loss of market fee and rural development fund in connivance with other employees. It was further noticed by the learned appellate court that plaintiff filed writ petition bearing no.7608 of 1996 in this Court which was disposed off with a direction to the respondents/defendants to decide the matter within a period of three months and as per Ex.P25 to P27, the respondents proceeded in accordance with law to recover the amount of loss from the appellant/plaintiff as well as his associates, which action was in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
In view of the above, in my opinion, no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal hence the same is hereby dismissed.
Since the main appeal itself stands dismissed, the application bearing CM No.2040-C/2012 filed under Order 41 Rule 5 also stands dismissed.
19.03.2012 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge