Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This judgment shall dispose of instant petition bearing C.W.P. No. 11662 of 2004 and other 29 connected writ petitions (for details see footnote at the end of this judgment) as common question of law and facts have been raised. For understanding the contour of controversy, the facts are being referred from C.W.P. No. 11662 of 2004.

2. Challenge in this bunch of petitions is to the charge sheet issued by the Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited (for brevity, 'the Markfed') leveling allegation that the petitioners in connivance with other staff are responsible for the shortage of paddy, which has been allegedly embezzled. There are allegations that the petitioner by his acts of omission and commission has caused huge loss amounting to crores of rupees. For the sake of convenience, the charge sheet issued to the petitioner in C.W.P. No. 11662 of 2004, is referred and the same reads as under:

CHARGES IN BRIEF AGAINST SH. M.P. DOGRA, FO/BR INCHARGE. He is alleged to be guilty for causing loss of Rs. 1,81,41,199.77 relating to paddy crop 97-98 in connivance with S/Shri Raj Singh, F.O. and Gurcharan Singh, F.O. (Retd.), which is a serious mis-conduct on his part.
Managing Director Markfed CHARGES IN DETAIL AGAINST SHRI M.P.DOGRA, FO/BR. INCHARGE.
While working as Branch Incharge in Markfed Branch Office, Muktsar, he was the joint custodian of following rice shellers with S/Shri Raj Singh, F.O., Gurcharan Singh, F.O. (Retd.) relating to paddy crop 97-98 as per detail below:

Managing Director Markfed

3. According to the assertions made by the petitioner, when paddy is entrusted by the Markfed to the miller for the purposes of milling rice then its physical and actual control always remain with the miller. In that regard reference has been made to the agreement entered into by the Markfed with the miller as also arbitration clause in the agreement, which is attached as Annexure P-l with C.W.P. No. 581of 2005. It has also been pointed out that the letter of the Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab, dated 11/16.12.2002 (P-7), also clarifies that joint custody with the miller by Markfed is only notional as possession remains with the miller only who store the paddy in their premises. Therefore, involving officers of the procurement institutions by the investigating agencies while investigating cases against the miller was stated to be misconceived and fallacious. Taking notice of the aforementioned letter of the worthy Chief Secretary, this Court has issued notice of motion on 5.8.2004, staying further proceedings. The order of the Division Bench reads as under:

5. The stand of the respondent Markfed is that enquiry officers have been appointed and in cases where awards have been passed against the millers then the punishing authority would pass appropriate orders granting relief to the deserving employee. In that regard our attention has been drawn to the order dated 24.3.2005, passed against the petitioner Shri M.P. Dogra in respect of previous years (C.W.P. No. 11662 of 2004) (R-1)/1. In the concluding part of the order, the Managing Director, Markfed, who is the competent authority has recorded that in case the loss is not recovered from the millers through arbitration/legal proceedings then the same was to be recovered from the officers in equal proportion along with interest.