AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
By way of this common order, aforementioned three petitions are being disposed of as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. CWP-21594-2026 is taken as leading case.
Instant petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 26.11.2025/08.06.2026 (Annexures P-13 and P-14), passed by respondent No.1 whereby the case of the petitioners has been referred back for conduct of regular enquiry and also for quashing punishment orders dated 24.12.2024/06.05.2025 (Annexure P-4), passed by respondent No.2 and also for quashing orders dated 18.05.2026/25.05.2026 (Annexure P-9), whereby an enquiry officer has been appointed and also for quashing charge sheets dated 18.10.2023 (Annexures P-2 and P-3), pertaining to storage gain and for quashing instructions dated 26.10.2004 (Annexure P-1).
Learned counsel for the petitioners has produced a copy of the judgment dated 03.02.2026, passed in CWP No.3077 of 2026 titled as 'Malwinder Singh v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (PUNSUP) and submits that the present case is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the said judgment. The said judgment reads thus:-
“1.The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned instructions dated 26.10.2004 (Annexure P-1) and show cause notice dated 02.04.2024 (Annexure P-2).
2.Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that a show cause notice dated 02.04.2024 (Annexure P-2) was issued to the petitioner alleging a loss of Rs.4,86,602/- on account of less storage gain of wheat for the year 2020-21 and is purportedly based upon instructions dated 26.10.2004 (Annexure P-1), which prescribe arbitrary norms for storage gain without any scientific basis. The issue of storage gain has already been conclusively examined by this Court in CWP-27725-2013, titled as Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Field Employees Union versus Union of India and others, decided on 14.05.2025 (Annexure P-3), and the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio laid down therein. It is further submitted that the instructions dated 26.10.2004 (Annexure P-1) stand superseded by subsequent instructions dated 30.05.2022; however, the respondent is still relying upon the superseded instructions, rendering the impugned action arbitrary and unsustainable.
3.Learned counsel further relies upon the order passed by this Court in CWP-37599-2025 and connected matters, titled as Sachin Kumar and others Versus Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (PUNSUP), decided on 22.12.2025 (Annexure P-5) in which charge sheets were quashed and set aside and the respondent therein was granted liberty to issue fresh charge sheet in terms of Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Field Employees Union’s case (supra).
4.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent could not controvert the fact that the entire disciplinary proceedings issued against the petitioner are based upon the instructions dated 26.10.2004 regarding storage which fix arbitrary norms for storage gain without any scientific basis and also could not controvert the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (supra).
5.In view of the above, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The impugned instructions dated 26.10.2004 (Annexure P-1) and show cause notice dated 02.04.2024 (Annexure P-2), are hereby quashed and set aside. However, the respondent would be at liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice/charge sheet in terms of Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Field Employees Union’s case (supra).”
Learned counsel for the respondents despite his best efforts could not refute the said contention.
Consequently, the present petition is disposed of in the same terms as in Malwinder Singh's case (supra).