RSA No.1722 of 2011 (O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No.1722 of 2011 (O&M)

Date of Decision:12.08.2014

Mr. V.K. Goswami

... Appellant

Vs.

Punjab Small Ind. and Export Corp. Ltd. and others ... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

Present :

Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. J.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the respondents.

****

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.

Having been non-suited by both the learned courts below,

recording concurrent findings of facts, whereby his suit for declaration,

mandatory injunction and permanent injunction was dismissed, plaintiff has

approached this Court by way of instant regular second appeal.

Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Additional

District Judge in paras 2 and 3 of the impugned judgment, are that the

appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that charge sheet

dated 27.11.1997, enquiry report dated 28.10.1998, order of recovery of

Rs.12,21,126/- dated 30.4.2004 are illegal, unjustified and discriminatory,

therefore, liable to be quashed and suit for mandatory injunction directing

the respondent to release all the pecuniary benefits and consequential

benefits to the plaintiff with interest @ 185 PA and a suit for permanent

injunction restraining the defendants from making recovery of the aforesaid

amount from the funds of the plaintiff or from his retiral benefits, on the

Thakral Rajeev

2014.08.22 10:36

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

High Court Chandigarh

RSA No.1722 of 2011 (O&M)

-2-

brief allegations that the plaintiff was initially appointed to the post of Clerk

on 15.11.1962 and in due course he was promoted to the post of Assistant

Manager on 29.1.1977. Later on designation of the post of Assistant

Manager was converted into the designation of Manager. The plaintiff

remained posted as Field Officer of Stock Yard of Steel Authority of India

Limited (hereinafter called as 'SAIL'), Dhandari Kalan, District Ludhiana,

Punjab w.e.f. 30.8.1991 to 31.10.2001 when he retired on attaining the age

of superannuation. It is further pleaded that abruptly the plaintiff was

served with a charge sheet dated 27.11.1997 by the defendant Department

and he submitted the reply to the same on 15.1.1998. Departmental inquiry

was ordered on 27.5.1998 by the defendant corporation and ultimately the

report was submitted on 28.10.1998 by the Inquiry Officer. The plaintiff

was served with a show cause notice dated 27.4.1999 vide which it was

proposed infliction of major punishment for recovery of Rs.36,63,379.30

paise from the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted his reply on 16.7.1999 and

also brought to the notice of the defendants the additional facts on

14.10.1999 as those facts were not within his knowledge during his inquiry.

On furnishing new facts, the plaintiff was given personal hearing by the

then Managing director on 11.4.2001 vide his order dated2/5.3.2001. The

matter was still pending but in the meantime the plaintiff retired w.e.f.

31.10.2001. As there was no outcome of the additional pleas taken by the

plaintiff, therefore, he instituted a Civil Writ Petition No.4096 of 2002

before the Hon'ble High Court and the defendants were given six months

time to decide the case by passing a speaking order. After giving him

personal hearing, the order dated 26.8.2002 was issued by the Managing

Director of the defendant corporation for the recovery of Rs.36,63,379.30

Thakral Rajeev

2014.08.22 10:36

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

High Court Chandigarh

RSA No.1722 of 2011 (O&M)

-3-

paise. The plaintiff, therefore, filed a statutory appeal. The defendant No.3

vide its order dated 30.4.2004, ordered for recovery of Rs.12,21,126/-

(penalty of recovery was reduced to 1/3^rd which come out to