AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prakash Tatia, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of punishment dated 25.4.2006 by which the respondent found the petitioner guilty in the departmental enquiry and the petitioner has been punished by taking a lenient view of withholding of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect as well as the appellate order dated 20. 12.2006.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority both have not considered the evidence on record and there is insufficient evidence on the basis of which the petitioner was found guilty.
From the facts, it appears that the petitioner was posted and working as field-man at the relevant time at Central State Fam Hissar and during this time, some excess medicine/pesticides were sprayed over the standing crop of wheat, resulting into complete damage to some part of the crop, causing loss of Rs. 75,000/-. The disciplinary authority recorded a finding that the petitioner was present in the field at the time of spraying and the damage to the crop occurred due to overlapping of spray. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner was in-charge of the field wherein the said medicine/pesticides was sprayed. This is also admitted that there was overlapping of spray and that caused damage to the crop. The petitioner''s plea was considered and rejected as the petitioner submitted that the damage was caused due to the negligence of driver of the tractor but that was treated to be the negligence on the part of the petitioner that he failed to supervise the operation in the field.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (2009) 1 SCC ( L & S) 398. There is no dispute that in departmental enquiry, one is required to be given full opportunity to defend himself and the disciplinary authority is required to take into account the evidence. So far as this case is concerned, it is not a case of no evidence, as according to the petitioner himself, before imposing punishment, there was committee''s report obtained which supported the prosecution case. However, more material is that the petitioner virtually has not disputed this fact that he was in-charge of the field when the damage was caused to the crop.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.