Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darshan Singh vs Punjab State Warehousing Corporation ... on 17 May, 2023
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
POOJA SHARMA 2023.05.26 18:44 CWP No.16060 of 2022 (O&M) 1 2023: PHHC:071895 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16060 of 2022 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.05.2023 Darshan Singh ee Petitioner versus Punjab State Warehousing Corporation & anr. _...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN REE Present :- Mr. M.K.Bhatnagar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Aditya Pratap Duggal, Advocate for the respondents. kkk PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
1 By way of present writ petition the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari impugning order dated 22.07.2019 (Anneuxre P-4) whereby the request of the petitioner for refund of an amount of Rs.1,68,059/- deposited by the petitioner unconditionally stands rejected.
2 Learned counsels are ad-idem that now during the pendency of the writ petition, the aforesaid amount stands refunded to the petitioner and the same has been received by him on 17.01.2023.
3 Petitioner who was an employee with the respondents- Corporation was served with chargesheet vide memo dated 22.11.2000. Inquiry conducted on the basis thereof exonerated the petitioner in its report dated 24.09.2001. Despite that the proceedings remained inconclusive till 2016 when the petitioner attained age of superannuation. Petitioner applied for extension of service from I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document POOJA SHARMA 2023.05.26 18:44 CWP No.16060 of 2022 (O&M) 2 2023: PHHC:071895 01.04.2016 for further two years and voluntarily offered to deposit an amount of Rs.1,68,059/- which was subject matter of chargesheet dated 22.11.2000 served on him. The extension was granted to the petitioner upto 31.03.2018. Thereafter the petitioner sought refund of the aforesaid amount which was declined vide order dated 22.07.2019 (Annexure P-4). 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid amount having been withheld by the respondents without any reason till the same was received by him on 17.01.2023, petitioner will be entitled for interest thereon.
5 Per contra \earned counsel for the respondents submits that the aforesaid amount was voluntarily deposited at the hands of the petitioner to seek extension in service and thus no interest is payable thereupon.
6 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
7 The admitted position of facts is discernible from the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been submitted as under :-
2. That the petitioner was issued charge-sheet vide Memo No.PSWC/Personnel/E-12/32799/2000 dated 22-11-2000 for the recovery of 50% amount i.e. Rs.2,40,083.66/- (including 50% incidental charges) out of the total financial loss of Rs.4,80,167.37/- to the Corporation due to short grain delivery of 646.69 quintals upon extraction of wheat crop for the year 1995-96 at State Warehouse, Amloh.
3. That in the year 2016, on his superannuation, the petitioner applied for extension in service and also requested to inform the amount of loss as per charge sheet issued to him vide memo dated 22-11-2000 so that petitioner could deposit the same to avail the benefit of extension I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.16060 of 2022 (O&M) 3 2023: PHHC:071895 POOJA SHARMA 2023.05.26 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document in service. Subsequently the petitioner deposited the amount vide Draft No.015613 dated 17-03-2016.
4. In respect of the above said amount deposited by the petitioner, vide Head Office Order No.PSWC/Personnel/E-10/PF19/6119-6123/16 dated 21-03-2016 orders were issued to withdraw the charge-sheet against the petitioner and on the basis of the option given by the petitioner regarding the extension in the service period, vide Head Office's order dated 22-03-2016, he was given an extension of the first year in the service period from 01-04-2016 to 31-03-2017 and similarly, vide order dated 27-03-2017, extension of second year was given in the service period from 01-04-2017 to 31-03-2018.
5. That it is respectfully submitted that in the conclusion report submitted by Sh. G.S. Aggarwal, Investigating Officer on 24-09-2001, the charges leveled in charge sheet issued against the petitioner were not proved but case was kept pending till the notification of storage gain norms adopted during meeting dated 17-10-2000 of BOD as per letter dated 16-04-1999 of the Food and Civil Supplies Department, so the decision of the present case could not be taken.
6. That but now in light of conclusion report submitted by the investigating officer and the facts from the record, while dropping the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner vide Memo No.32799 dated 22-11-2000, the amount of Rs.1,68,058.56/- deposited by the employee is ordered to released vide order dated 25.11.2022. For the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, copy of order is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1."
Thus from the aforesaid facts it is evident that :-
a) The petitioner was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer in its report dated 24.09.2001;
b) Despite the said fact the proceedings against the petitioner was kept alive purely on account of inertness of respondents; Cc) In order to avail the extension in the service beyond the age of superannuation the petitioner had no other option but to offer the aforesaid deposit;
d) Even after extension in service expired on 31.03.2018 respondents without any reason rejected the claim of the petitioner for refund vide Annexure P-4. After writ petition was filed order dated POOJA SHARMA 2023.05.26 18:44 CWP No.16060 of 2022 (O&M) 4 2023: PHHC:071895 25.11.2022 has been passed which has been placed upon record as Annexure R-1 admitting the claim of the petitioner.
9 The aforesaid facts show high handedness on behalf of the respondents-Corporation where an employee has been dragged to unwanted litigation and sword was kept hanging on his head for 16 years despite exoneration in enquiry.
10 In view of the above this Court finds that not only the deposit was without any necessity but the same cannot be termed as voluntary. The petitioner was seeking extension in service and respondents-Corporation were interested in keeping alive the charge sheet despite there being report by investigating officer exonerating him. 11 In view of above, the petitioner is held to be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual realization.
12 Ordered accordingly.
13 Petition stands disposed off.
(PANKAJ JAIN ) JUDGE 17.05.2023 Pooja sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable : No I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document