The High Court
Case Details
CWP-2702-2024 (O&M) 2024 (O&M) Sr. No.108 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CWP-2702-2024 (O&M) CWP Date of Decision : 22.01.2025 Date of Decision : Supply and Marketing Federation Limited, The Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited, The Punjab State Cooperative Chandigarh Sh. Deepak Kumar and others Sh. Deepak Kumar and others …Petitioner … Versus …Respondents …Respondent HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. for the petitioner. *** LAPITA BANERJI, J. (Oral) LAPITA BANERJI In the present writ petition under Articles 226 In the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner (Markfed Constitution o
Legal Reasoning
f India, the petitioner (Markfed) has inter alia challenged the impugned order dated January 09, 2023 (Annexure P-10) passed by the impugned order dated January 09, 2023 (Annexure P the impugned order dated January 09, 2023 (Annexure P the learned Additional Registrar (Administration) Cooperative Societies, the learned Additional Registrar (Administration) Cooperative Societies, the learned Additional Registrar (Administration) Cooperative Societies, Punjab and the order dated June 02, 2021 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Punjab and the order dated June 02, 2021 (Annexure P Punjab and the order dated June 02, 2021 (Annexure P Chairman/Appellate Authority. Chairman/Appellate Authority. 2. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The brief facts of the case are as follows: The brief facts of the case are as follows: espondents No.1 and 2 were employees of the The respondents No.1 and 2 were employees of the The r Markfed. Respondent No.1 has since retired from service. Markfed. Respondent No.1 has s petitioner-Markfed. Respondent No.1 has s They were charge sheeted on October 23, 2013 for production of less were charge-sheeted on October 23, 2013 for production of less rice/less yield of head rice in comparison to rice/less yield ad rice in comparison to the norms stipulated by Markfed rice p rice processing complex, Batala. omplex, Batala. It was alleged that they caused a loss of Rs.22,76,165/- for less production caused a loss of Rs.22 for less production of head rice and Rs.5,13,569/- - on account of less price fetched on less price fetched on tender sale of rice. VANDANA 2025.01.24 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 1 of 5 CWP-2702-2024 (O&M) 2024 (O&M) 4. A regular departmental inquiry was conducted. Inquiry A regular departmental inquiry was conducted. A regular departmental inquiry was conducted. report was submitted on August 4, 2017. The inquiry report was sent to report was submitted on August 4, 2017. The inquiry report was sent to report was submitted on August 4, 2017. The inquiry report was sent to the delinquent employees and a reply was sought for from them. An the delinquent employees and a reply was sought for from them. An the delinquent employees and a reply was sought for from them. An opportunity of personal hearing was also afforded to respondents No.1 opportunity of personal hearing was also afforded to respond opportunity of personal hearing was also afforded to respond and 2 (delinquent employees) on December 19, 2019. However, not and 2 (delinquent employees) on December 19, 2019. However, not and 2 (delinquent employees) on December 19, 2019. However, not agreeing with the defence raised by the delinquent employees, an order agreeing with the defence raised by the delinquent employees, an order agreeing with the defence raised by the delinquent employees, an order of punishment dated February 3, 2020 was passed against them, holding of punishment dated February 3, 2020 was passed against them of punishment dated February 3, 2020 was passed against them them responsible for causing a loss of Rs them responsible f or causing a loss of Rs.27,89,734/- along with interest. The same amount was ordered to be recovered from both the interest. The same amount was ordered to be recovered from both the interest. The same amount was ordered to be recovered from both the respondents in equal proportions. respondents in equal proportions. 5. Aggrieved by the order of punishment, both respondents Aggrieved by the order of punishment, both respondents Aggrieved by the order of punishment, both respondents No.1 and 2 filed an appeal before the Board of Directors. The appellate No.1 and 2 filed an appeal before the Board of Directors. The appellat No.1 and 2 filed an appeal before the Board of Directors. The appellat authority set aside the punishment order vide order dated June 02, 2021. authority set aside the punishment order vide order dated June authority set aside the punishment order vide order dated June 2, 2021 passed by the Appellate Aggrieved by the order dated June 2, 2021 passed by the Appellate Aggrieved by the order dated June Authority, the revision petition was filed by the Authority, the petition was filed by the petitioner through its District Manager, Gurdaspur. District Manager, Gurdaspur. 6. The petitioner in the revision petition contended that The in the revision petition contended that norms of 64% yield of that was adopted for paddy crop in the year yield of head rice that was adopted for paddy crop in the year 2007-08 continued ti 08 continued till 2016-2017. Though t Though the Management had taken a decision not to run rice mills where Korean machineries decision not to run rice mills where Korean machineries were installed but the norms regarding the yield of 64% per year remain but the norms regarding t he yield of 64% per year remain unchanged. 7. Admittedly, the total yield of rice Admittedly, the total yield of rice was in excess of norms was below 64%. Production of broken fixed but the yield for head rice was below 64%. Production of broken fixed but the yield for rice was more than the norms stipulated. rice was more than the norms stipulated. VANDANA 2025.01.24 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 5 CWP-2702-2024 (O&M) 2024 (O&M) 8. The present allegations against the employees pertain to the The present allegations against the employees pertain to the The present allegations against the employees pertain to the crop yield for the year 2009 for the year 2009-2010. The total 2010. The total head rice that was produced paddy milled that was under the custody of the delinquent paddy milled that was under the from the paddy milled that was under the less than 64% and did not conform to the specifications employees was less than 64% and did not conform to the specifications employees was Food Corporation of India (FCI). Therefore, the laid down by the Food Corporation of India (FCI). Therefore, the laid down by the had to sell the same in open market through tender sale, which petitioner had to sell the same in open market through tender sale, which had to sell the same in open market through tender sale, which caused further loss. caused further loss. 9. The delinquent employees-respondents The delinquent employe respondents No.1 and 2 defended the allegations by contending that the norm of production 64% yield for the allegations by contending that the norm of production the allegations by contending that the norm of production head rice was only applicable to the crop yield for the head rice was only applicable to the crop yield for the year 2007-08 and 2010. The issue of less yield was due not applicable to the yield of 2009-2010. The issue of less yield was due not applicable to to defective Korean machinery installed at milling sites to defective Ko installed at milling sites and an award was passed in arbitration proceedings for a sum of Rs.11.08 crore in was passed in arbitration proceedings for a sum of Rs.11.08 crore in was passed in arbitration proceedings for a sum of Rs.11.08 crore in favour of Markfed against the Korean firm which had delivered the favour of Markfed against the Korean firm which favour of Markfed against the Korean firm which machinery. Further more, Markfed/petitioner machinery. Further more, Markfed/ petitioner was allowed to withhold able to the Korean firm on account of Rs.2.81 crore from the amount payable to the Korean firm on account of Rs.2.81 crore from the amount pay
Legal Reasoning
the defects. It was argued on behalf of Markfed that the norms stipulated It was argued on behalf of Markfed that the norms stipulated for 2007-08 was 08 was also applicable for 2009 applicable for 2009-10 since there was no s were reasonable. alteration of the situation and the said norms were reasonable. alteration of the situation and the said norm 10. After going through the allegations made by Markfed and After going through the allegations made by Markfed and After going through the allegations made by Markfed and the response filed by the delinquent employees, the revisional authority the response filed by the delinquent employees, the revisional authority the response filed by the delinquent employees, the revisional authority was inter alia inter alia of the opinion that since no norms were fixed for 2009 of the opinion that since no norms were fixed for 2009-10, it could not be implied that the norms of 2007-08 continued for the it could not be implied that the norms of 2007 it could not be implied that the norms of 2007 aforesaid period. The Management was required to adopt/fix norms aforesaid period. The Management was required to adopt aforesaid period. The Management was required to adopt every year. No documents were shown by the petitioner to substantiate every year. No documents were shown by the every year. No documents were shown by the VANDANA 2025.01.24 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 3 of 5 CWP-2702-2024 (O&M) 2024 (O&M) that the norms of production/yield of 64% of head rice that that the norms of production/yield of the claim that the norms of production/yield of was stipulated for 2007-08 had been extended to 2009 was stipulated for 2007 extended to 2009-10. 11. The revisional authority held that order of the punishing The revisional authority held that order of the punishing The revisional authority held that order of the punishing authority suffered from infirmity since it had not conside authority suffered from infirmity it had not considered the aspect of Korean machinery used by Rice Processing Centre (RPC) suffers Korean machinery used by Rice Processing Centre (R the Korean machinery used by Rice Processing Centre (R from defects. Admittedly, due to non-replacement of the parts, from defects. Admittedly, due to replacement of the parts, arbitration against the supplier company. proceedings were filed by the petitioner against the supplier company proceedings were filed by the petitioner The said arbitration proce edings had been decided in favour of the he said arbitration proceedings had been decided in favour of the . The revisional authority held that the fact of defective . The revisional authority held that the fact petitioner. The revisional authority held that the fact should have been considered by the punishing machinery being used should have been considered by the punishing machinery being used authority. Further more, it observed that since in similar cases the authority. Further more, it observed that since in similar case authority. Further more, it observed that since in similar case charges against o against other employees had been dropped, the ther employees had been dropped, the charge-sheet against the delinquent employees in the present proceedings should also against the delinquent employees in the present proceedings against the delinquent employees in the present proceedings Therefore, the order of the appellate authority was have been dropped. Therefore, the order of the appellate authority was have been dropped. upheld and the revision petition was dismissed on merits. upheld and the revision petition was dismissed on meri upheld and the revision petition was dismissed on meri 12. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. material on record. 13. Even though the order of the appellate authority may have Even though the order of the appellate authority may have Even though the order of the appellate authority may have but the revisional authority had passed a detailed order on but the revisional authority had been cryptic but the revisional authority had ntainability has been discussed and January 09, 2023. The issue of maintainability has been discussed and January 09, 2023. the petition was held to be maintainable. On merits, the revisional the petition was held to be maintainable. the petition was held to be maintainable. authority has explained the position factually, in details and upon authority has explained the position factually authority has explained the position factually consideration of the evidence in detail upheld the order of the appellate consideration of the evidence in detail upheld the order of the appellate consideration of the evidence in detail upheld the order of the appellate authority. VANDANA 2025.01.24 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 4 of 5 CWP-2702-2024 (O&M) 2024 (O&M) 14. This Court finds no infirmity in the order passed by the This Court finds no infirmity in the order passed by the This Court finds no infirmity in the order passed by the revisional authority. It cannot be said that it suffers from error of law on revisional authority. It cannot be said that it suffers from error of law on revisional authority. It cannot be said that it suffers from error of law on the face of record or there is any other error apparent on the face of the the face of record or there is any other error apparent on the face of the the face of record or there is any other error apparent on the face of the record or that the revisional authority had misdirected record or that the revisional authori misdirected itself. 15. 16. Accordingly, CWP being No.2702-2024 is dismissed. Accordingly, CWP being No.2702 Accordingly, CWP being No.2702
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (LAPITA BANERJI) (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE JUDGE January 22, 202 Vandana , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : Whether reportable : Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No VANDANA 2025.01.24 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 5 of 5