HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. With the consent of the parties, the above-mentioned writ petitions are taken up together and are being decided by this common judgment. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP No.27264 of 2013.

2. The CWP No.27264 of 2013 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of impugned order dated 19.07.2013 (Annexure P-10) and further to issue a direction to the respondents to release the withheld retiral benefits of the petitioner along with interest from the date of his retirement.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner retired from the post of Manager after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2011. Three months after retirement, respondent No.2 served the petitioner with a charge-sheet on 16.08.2011 under Rule 19 of the HAFED Common Cadre Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1988") on the allegations of less storage gain of wheat. The petitioner filed a detailed reply to the chargesheet on 24.01.2012 (Annexure P-3). Consequently, on 29.05.2012, the petitioner made a representation to respondent No.2 seeking release of his retiral benefits as he was facing financial hardship after retirement, followed by another representation dated 15.06.2012 (Annexure P-5). Ultimately, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 20.07.2012 upon respondent No.2 (Annexure P-6). The petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No.18870 of 2012 which was disposed of on 19.12.2012 (Annexure P-7) with a direction to the respondents to conclude disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner within six months. Thereafter, another notice under Rule 19.2(g) of the Rules, 1988 and a copy of the enquiry report dated 13.05.2013 was supplied to the petitioner (Annexure P-8 and P-9 respectively). Ultimately, the respondent-Federation held the petitioner responsible for less storage gain of wheat by passing the impugned order dated 19.07.2013. The relevant Section 17 is reproduced as under,

"(1) For the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 15 and of section 16, loss of weight or bulk by drayage or shrinkage within prescribed limits and gain in weight by absorption or moisture within such limits shall not be deemed to amount to deterioration.

(2) If there is any excess in the goods stored in a warehouse by absorption of moisture or other causes, the warehouseman shall not be entitled thereto.

(3) if there is any shortage in the goods stored in a warehouse by dry age or other causes beyond his control the warehouseman shall not be responsible therefore."

As such, the respondent-Federation cannot invoke administrative instructions or policy decisions which are contrary to the statutory provisions of Section 17 of the Act. Admittedly, if there is any weight gain in wheat due to moisture, the Food Corporation of India does not pay any money for the same, meaning there is no actual loss to respondent No.2-Federation. He further submits that the instructions fixing norms regarding excess gain in weight issued by the State Government have come up for consideration before this Court in CWP No.26704 of 2015 titled Ram Sawrup vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 10.07.2019, and this Court, while relying upon the Division Bench decision in CWP No.3239 of 1993 titled Punjab Warehousing Fields Employees Union, Patiala and others vs. State of Punjab, decided on 20.06.1994, held the norms to be inapplicable for recovery of amount from an employee.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the case of the petitioner is also covered by the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.15247 of 2011 titled S.C. Jain vs. Managing Director, Haryana State Federation of Consumers Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd. and another, decided on 22.05.2013 and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and another