Daya Chaudhary, J. - (1.) THE present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing of order dated 1.9.2010 (Annexure P -2) passed by Respondent No. 2 as well as order dated 31.12.2010 (Annexure P -5) passed by Respondent No. 1 in appeal filed by the Petitioner vide which recovery of Rs. 3,76,090/ -has been ordered to be effected from the salary of the Petitioner.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner submits that as per report of the Tehsildar, Kalanaur, which was based on verification by the Patwari, the loss to the crop and property occurred due to the heavy rain. Learned Counsel further submits that the alleged recovery has been made after a lapse of more than 17 years and the appellate authority has passed totally a non -speaking order and No. finding whatsoever has been given with regard to the fact that whether woods are part of maal or not. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that the report of the Project Officer, Gurdaspur regarding sweeping away of the woods due to flood has not been authenticated by the revenue authorities. He further submits that ample opportunity was given to the Petitioner as he was served with show cause notice and after considering his reply, the impugned order has been passed. The impugned order is well speaking and the reasons have also been mentioned in the same. Learned Counsel also submits that the Petitioner has the remedy of second appeal before the Chairman of the Corporation but the same has not been availed. Moreover heavy loss to the tune of Rs. 4,07,731/ -has been caused to the Corporation and there was No. proof in the report of Halqa Patwari also that the woods were swept away due to flood in the area. Learned Counsel also argued that simply by stating that woods were swept away due to heavy flood is not sufficient as it was the duty of the Petitioner to look after the woods and even he did not report the matter to the higher authorities with regard to sweeping of woods and now this plea has been taken by him just to save himself.
(3.) HEARD the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned orders as well as other documents available on record.;