Kulwant Singh vs Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited

Sabina, J.—Vide this order, above mentioned petitions would be disposed of as controversy involved in all these cases, is similar.

Petitioners were working with the respondent corporation and retired from service. However, after their retirement, charge sheets were issued to the petitioners on the allegations of causing financial loss to the corporation on account of shortage due to damage of wheat etc.

Case of the petitioners is that they could not be issued the charge sheets after their retirement as the corporation had failed to seek appropriate sanction from the Government of Punjab in terms of Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules.

Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the charge sheets issued to the petitioners were liable to be set aside as the petitioners had already retired from service on the date of issuance of the charge sheets. Respondent-corporation was required to seek sanction from the government before issuing the charge sheets.

Learned counsel for the respondents-corporation, on the other hand, has submitted that petitioners had caused huge loss to the corporation running into crores of rupees. The power to appoint and punish Class-III and IV employees had been re-delegated to Additional Managing Director by the Managing Director of the corporation. Therefore, Additional Managing Director was the competent authority to issue the charge sheet and no approval from the government was required before issuing the charge sheet.

In the present case, petitioners were working with the corporation. Admittedly, the charge sheets have been issued to the petitioners after they had retired from service.

So far as petitioner Kulwant Singh son of Arjan Singh is concerned, charge sheet has been issued to him on the allegations that on account of his negligence, corporation had suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs. 16,63,75,261/-.

So far as petitioner Tarsem Lal Gautam is concerned, charge sheet has been issued to him on the allegations that he had caused financial loss to the corporation to the tune of Rs. 99,24,962/- on account of shortage of wheat stock, gunny bags and poly sheets.

So far as petitioner Charanjit Singh is concerned, charge sheet has been issued to him on the allegations that on account of his negligence, corporation had suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs. 99,43,914/-.

So far as petitioner Bharat Bhushan is concerned, he was issued the charge sheet on the allegations that on account of his negligence, corporation had suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs. 2,11,55,389/-.

So far as petitioner Rajinder Singh is concerned, charge sheet has been issued to him on the allegations that due to his negligence, corporation had suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs. 14,38,496/-.

So far as petitioner C.L. Kalsi is concerned, charge sheet has been issued to him on the allegations that due to his negligence, corporation had suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs. 50,81,700/-.

So far as petitioner Surjit Singh son of Kartar Singh is concerned, charge sheet has been issued to him on the allegations that due to his negligence, corporation had suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs. 10,52,222/-.

So far as petitioner Harnek Singh is concerned, charge sheet has been issued to him on the allegations that on account of his negligence, corporation had suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs. 60,11,747/-.

So far as petitioner Kabul Singh is concerned, charge sheet was issued to him on the allegations that on account of his negligence, corporation had suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs. 5,50,143/-.

So far as petitioner Mela Singh is concerned, charge sheet was issued to him on the allegations that due to his negligence, corporation had suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs. 40,80,162/-.

So far as petitioner Kulwant Singh son of Sawaran Singh is concerned, he was issued the charge sheet on the allegations that due to his negligence, corporation had suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs. 26,23,453/-.

So far as petitioner Surjit Singh son of Kartar Singh is concerned, charge sheet has been issued to him on the allegations that on account of his negligence, corporation had suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs. 2,07,89,617/-.

So far as petitioner Gurmail Singh is concerned, charge sheet has been issued to him on the allegations that on account of his negligence, corporation had suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs. 22,09,786/-.

So far as petitioner Tarsem Chand is concerned, charge sheet was issued to him on the allegations that due to his negligence, corporation had suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs. 9,62,617/-.

Thus, the allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature. As per the certified standing orders in respect of the employees of the corporation, employer means the Managing Director incharge of the corporation or anyone duly authorized by the corporation to act on its behalf.

Case of the respondents is that the Managing Director had authorized the Additional Managing Director to appoint and punish Class-III and IV employees. Therefore, the competent authority was entitled to issue the charge sheets against the petitioners. Rule 2.2(b) (proviso ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules fails to advance the case of the petitioners. Petitioners can take up all the pleas available to them during the departmental proceedings. However, no ground to quash the impugned charge sheets is made out.

Accordingly, all the petitions are dismissed.