Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 4396 (PNJ)

State of Punjab v. Balwinder Singh

2018-11-15

ANIL KSHETARPAL

body2018
JUDGMENT Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral) - State of Punjab is in the regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the courts below, decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent, restraining the defendants from recovery of Rs.1,62,011/- from the salary of the plaintiff-respondent on the basis of order dated 26.02.2001, passed by defendant no.2. 2. At the time of admission, following substantial questions of law were framed:- “1. Whether the civil court can act as court of appeal while considering the legality of the order of recovery? 2. Whether the civil court can examine the decision or is required to examine whether the decision making process is in accordance with Rules?” 3. It is undisputed that the plaintiff-respondent has already retired from service on 30.06.2006. It has also come in evidence that the plaintiff-respondent who was working as Assistant Food and Supplies Officer, was transferred from Doraha to Gurdaspur on 07.04.1978 and he handed over the charge to his successor on the same day. State of Punjab on account of supply of wheat, which was found to be infested, weevled and atta formation had got less payment of Rs.6,52,045/- on account of quality cut which was sought to be recovered and passed on to its employees. 4. Both the courts have found as a matter of fact that the aforesaid wheat was loaded in the goods special train on 16.04.1978 from Doraha. Whereas plaintiff-respondent was transferred on 07.04.1978 and he handed over the charge on the same day vide Ex.P3, in which there is no report that the stock, which has been taken over by the successor over is heavily infested. Admittedly, on the day the train left the Railway Station, Doraha, the plaintiff-respondent was not posted at Doraha. Still further Additional Secretary, Food and Supplies, Punjab, vide Ex.P2 exonerated the plaintiff-respondent from the charges framed against him. However, Director-cum Special Secretary, Government of Punjab, passed the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the State of Punjab has read over the impugned order passed by defendant no.2, dated 26.02.2001, wherein portion of the liability has been fixed on the plaintiff-respondent only on the basis that the plaintiff-respondent was incharge of the custody and care of the stock at Doraha. 5. Learned counsel for the State of Punjab has read over the impugned order passed by defendant no.2, dated 26.02.2001, wherein portion of the liability has been fixed on the plaintiff-respondent only on the basis that the plaintiff-respondent was incharge of the custody and care of the stock at Doraha. No finding has been returned that on the day, plaintiff handed over the charge to his successor, the stock was found to be infested are damaged. Before ordering recovery, it was the duty of the punishing authority to pass an order with specific finding that it was on account of misconduct of the plaintiff, the loss occurred and therefore, recovery is required to be made. Such order cannot be passed only on the basis of assumptions as has been noticed above. 6. Accordingly, the questions framed are answered in the manner that no doubt the jurisdiction of the civil court in considering the legality of order of recovery is limited, however, the civil court cannot overlook the fact that the order has been passed only on the basis of assumption and not on the basis of substantive material on the record. 7. In view thereof, this court does not find any good ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below. 8. The regular second appeal is dismissed.