Valmiki J. Mehta, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner, an employee of the respondent no.1/Food Corporation of India, impugns the orders passed against him by the departmental authorities, the Disciplinary Authority dated 22.12.2001; Appellate Authority dated 3/5.12.2002 and the Reviewing Authority dated 12.7.2004, whereby penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner of reduction to the lower time scale of pay i.e. from the post of AG -II(D) to AG - III (D) for a period of two years with a further direction that his pay will be fixed at the stage of AG -III(D) as if he would not have been promoted to the post of AG -II(D). It is relevant to state that the Disciplinary Authority had imposed the penalty of dismissal from services upon the petitioner, and which was upheld by the Appellate Authority but the Reviewing Authority reduced the punishment to reduction of pay.
(2.) THE charge against the petitioner was that he was posted at Malerkotla but was the custodian/joint custodian of wheat and paddy stocks at Amargarh during the years 1997 -98 and 1998 -99 but in failure of his duties he did not protect the paddy and wheat stocks from the vagaries of weather resulting in colossal loss to the respondent no.1/employer. Due to carelessness of the petitioner, alongwith the other persons who were also proceeded against with departmentally, there was loss to 1,88,130 quintals of paddy in 1997 -98 and 17,250 quintals of wheat for the year 1998 -99 on account of down -grading/deterioration of the said stock. Had the petitioner ensured proper maintenance, security and safety of stocks by adopting damage control measures and protected the stocks by covering/de -covering as directed by the District Manager, Sangrur, that would have saved the respondent no.1/employer from the huge loss. Before I turn to the aspects of the case and the arguments urged on behalf of the petitioner, it is required to be noted that the scope of hearing of a writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which challenges the findings and conclusions of the departmental authorities, is limited. It is settled law that this Court does not sit as an appellate court over the findings and conclusions of the departmental authorities. This Court will not interfere with one of the two views which are taken by the departmental authorities on preponderance of probabilities. This Court will only interfere in case there is violation of the principles of natural justice or the actions of the departmental authorities are against the law or rules of the employer -organization or the findings and conclusions are perverse or the punishment imposed is disproportionate.
(3.) IN the present case, the Enquiry Officer by his detailed report running into 35 pages has analyzed the entire evidence which was led before him, and has thereafter reached at the conclusion of the petitioner being guilty. It may be noted that the only defence of the petitioner/ charge -sheeted official, and which is also the only argument urged before me, is that the petitioner was not posted at Amargarh and nor was he in -charge of the stocks at Amargarh. The case of the department on the other hand was that the petitioner was no doubt not posted at Amargarh but petitioner was joint custodian of the stocks at Amargarh. With regard to this aspect, the Enquiry Officer has given the following observations: - (c) Shri Lakhwinder Singh, AG. II (D) worked at H.G. Amargarh from Sep 87 to Jan 99. He was the joint custodian of paddy 1997 -98 and wheat 1998 -99 with Shri Bakhshish Singh, AG.I(D) Amargarh alongwith Punjab Mandi Karan Board, Malerkotla -I. (Statement of DW -3, Page 37/100 or Exhibit P -2/2 and Exhibit D -6). xxx (bp) Shri Lakhwinder Singh, AG.II(D) identified his signature on page 37/100 for Exhibit P -2/2 and confirmed its contents. (Cross -examination of DW -3). (underlining added);