- (1.) Salwinder Dass through present petition filed by him under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari so as to quash orders Annexures P3, P5, P6 and P8 and to further direct respondents to reinstate him with all consequential benefits. The facts culminating into present writ petition need to be noticed first.
(2.) Petitioner was appointed as a Storeman in the respondent-Corporation where he joined with effect from 3.12.1973. He was promoted as Junior Store-Keeper with effect from 13.10.1986. He proceeded on casual leave for 1.10.1987 with permission to leave station on 2.10.1987 being a Gazetted holiday, while on leave at his village he fell sick and submitted medical certificate for extension of leave. He remained on leave for 21 days with effect from 3.10.1987 to 23.10.1987 and reported for duty thereafter alongwith medical certificate to the effect that he was fit to resume duties, the respondents, it is pleaded did not challenge the medical certificate or the fitness certificate produced by him, thus, making him to believe that the leave was sanctioned by the competent authority. On resumption of his duty, he continued to discharge his official functions till 16.1.1991 when he was dismissed from service with immediate effect. When he was working on the post of Junior Store Keeper at Gurdaspur, he was transferred to Rajpura with effect from 2.11.1987 on return from medical leave, he made over charge of the store to the Store-keeper Shri K.C. Dogra, before relinquishing duty at Gurdaspur to take over at Rajpura. When he was working as Junior Store-keeper at Rajpura, he was reverted from the post of Junior Store-keeper, to that of Storeman vide order dated 12.12.1987. Thereafter he was retransferred to Gurdaspur as a Storeman where he joined his duty on 9.5.1988. It is pleaded that his transfer from Rajpura to Gurdaspur was against the wishes of District Manager Sales, Shri S.S. Brar, Some embezzlement and mis-appropriation matter to the extent of rupees four lacs was pending against aforesaid Shri Brar involving transaction of fertiliser. The action was initiated against him two months before the transfer of petitioner from Gurdaspur to Rajpura. - Shri Brar had a strong suspicion against him as he thought that the case was initiated against him at the instance of petitioner, that being so, Shri Brar further suspected that the petitioner shall appear against him and for this precise reason, it is further pleaded that Shri brar resisted his re-transfer from Rajapur to Gurdaspur. However, when he joined at Gurdaspur, he was served with a charge-sheet on 165.1988. The charges against him were that he had remained absent unauthorisedly from 1.10.1987 to 21.10.1987 as also that he had made sales vide bill Nos. 116501 to 116522 totalling Rs. 11,924/49 P during the period 1.9.1987 to 16.10.1987 against which only a sum of Rs. 5,800/- was deposited by him leaving a shortage of Rs. 6,124/-49P. The petitioner denied the charges levelled against him vide his reply dated 31.5.1988. An Inquiry Officer, was thereafter appointed who submitted his report to the authorities on 14.6.1989 holding the petitioner guilty of both the charges. On the basis of inquiry report, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice. He filed reply to the same on 3.8.1989. On the basis of inquiry report, he dismissed from service with immediate effect vide orders dated 16/17.1.1991. He filed an appeal to the Chairman, Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited Chandigarh who is stated to be Appellate Authority on 12.2.1991. The same was rejected on 153.1991. In the wake of circumstances that have been mentioned above, petitioner prays for setting aside of charge-sheet Annexure P3, enquiry report Annexure P5, order of dismissal Annexure P6 as also order of Appellate Authority Annexure P8.
(3.) On of the grounds praying for setting aside of the orders aforesaid and in particular appellate order is that while dealing with the matter the Appellate Authority passed a non-speaking, cryptic order and did not deal with any ground, detailed in the grounds of appeal so submitted by him vide Annexure P7. It is not disputed that is the Appellate order Annexure P8 none of the grounds mentioned by the petitioner in his memorandum of appeal was discussed. The appellate order runs thus:- "I have seen the case thoroughly. the Charges levelled against the appellant have been fully proved by the evidence of the witnesses the entire action has been taken in accordance with the Rules and the appellant was given full opportunity to defend. There is no scope of any change in the punishment already awarded. The appeal is being dismissed. Dated 17- 3.-1991 Sd/- Chairman". In the written statement, the only justification to defend the appellate order is that charges are proved by enquiry report and the dismissal order which are well reasoned and the appeal was rejected after going through the whole records and nothing new was said in the grounds of appeal and the same concocted story was repeated against Shri brar which has no legs to stand in the fact of admission and consent to deduct the shortage from the pay of the petitioner. the Appellate Authority was not required to repeat all the earlier grounds on which his arguments and pleas were rejected.;