Back
2011 Supreme(P&H) 548
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Ranjit Singh, J.
R.C.Katyal
Versus
Haryana Warehousing Corporation, Panchkula
Civil Writ Petition No. 20246 of 2009,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 14, 2011
The central legal point established in the judgment is that departmental proceedings cannot be instituted for events that took place more than four years before the institution of such proceedings, as per Rule 2.2 (b) of the Rules.
Headnote:
Natural Justice - Employment Dispute - Rule 2.2 (b) of Haryana Civil Services, Volume II - 31.10.2005, 3.5.2007, 26.11.2008, 1.9.2009 - The court discussed the application of Rule 2.2 (b) of the Rules, which states that departmental proceedings cannot be instituted for events that took place more than four years before the institution of such proceedings. The court found that losses beyond the four-year period could not be attributed to the petitioner and remitted the case back to the Managing Director for re-examination and a fresh order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the Corporation, filed a writ petition to challenge orders alleging illegalities and violation of natural justice. The petitioner's main grievance was based on Rule 2.2 (b) of the Haryana Civil Services, Volume II, which limits the institution of departmental proceedings to events within four years before the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that losses beyond the four-year period could not be attributed to the petitioner and remitted the case back to the Managing Director for re-examination and a fresh order.
Issues: The main issue was the application of Rule 2.2 (b) of the Rules in the petitioner's case and whether losses beyond the four-year period could be attributed to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that departmental proceedings cannot be instituted for events that took place more than four years before the institution of such proceedings, as per Rule 2.2 (b) of the Rules.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition and remitted the case back to the Managing Director for re-examination and a fresh order.
Ranjit Singh, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing of order dated 31.10.2005 (Annexure P-11) and for setting-aside order dated 3.5.2007 (Annexure P-13) passed on an appeal filed against this order and some other orders on the ground that these are illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice.
2. The petitioner had joined the services of the Corporation on 30.9.2002. While being posted as Manager, State Warehouse, Ratia, in the year 1997, some technical inspection was conducted by Assistant Manager (Quality Control), Hisar, who reported high moisture contents varying from 17.9% to 22%. The District Manager, Hisar, brought to the notice of the petitioner that stock was not having complete entries of high moisture content in paddy. Subsequently, the petitioner had replied that high moisture in paddy had been received from FCI during rains and the stocks had been stacked. The petitioner claims that stack was not moved by him and same continued to remain in position after these were stacked.
3. With effect from 23.12.1998, the delivery of paddy to FCI started and the moisture contents were reported between 11%to 12.40%. Some abnormal shortages in paddy stocks was reported by Sh.Mohinder Kumar, Junior Technical Assistant. The whole stock of paddy was delivered between 22.12.1998 to 2.2.1999. The matter was investigated by the Corporation. As per the petitioner, the stock was found to be well preserved scientifically in the Warehouse and the losses occurred due to natural cause beyond any human control. The petitioner accordingly contends that it was recommended that the losses be regularised.
4. The petitioner retired with effect from 30.9.2002. He was charge sheeted on 31.12.2002 videAnnexure P-9, containing an allegation that why some recovery and minor punishment be not imposed on him for the shortages that were noticed. The petitioner submitted his reply on 4.2.2003, denying the charges. The respondent- Corporation consequently passed an order dated 31.10.2005, directing that the alleged loss be equally borne by the concerned officials. The petitioner preferred an appeal against this order, which was rejected on 3.5.2007.The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal for reconsideration before the Board of Directors. As revealed from the record, the Board of Directors had set-aside the orders passed by the Managing Director and the Executive Committee and remanded the case to the Managing Director for re-examination and to pass a fresh order after getting an enquiry conducted and affording due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner would further refer to the decision of the Board of Directors to say that higher storage losses could not be attributed entirely to his responsibility and that the penalty imposed is not commensurate with the gravity and the lapses. The petitioner has still been held liable for the loss on 26.11.2008 to the tune of Rs. 39.298-80P and a sum of Rs. 6230/- being excess market fee. This order was again appealed, which was rejected on 1.9.2009. The petitioner, therefore, has filed this writ petition before this Court.
5. The main grievance raised by the petitioner is on the basis of provisions of Rule 2.2 (b) of Haryana Civil Services, Volume II (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), which has been made applicable to its employees by the respondent- Warehousing Corporation. Rule 2.2(b) of the Rules makes a clear provision that departmental proceedings if not instituted while the officer was in service whether before retirement or during his re-employment can only be with the sanction of the Government and that it shall not be in respect of an event, which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings. On this basis, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the loss, if any, which was prior to four years of the institution of these proceedings can not be enquired into and the petitioner made
