- (1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.5.2004 (Annexure (P.6) and 20.7.2004 (Annexure P.7) and a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to release a sum of Rs. 1, 27,417.21 deducted from his salary with 18% interest.
(2.) The petitioner was an employee with Punjab State Federation of Consumer Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd. (Constofed) since the year 1980/81. While he was posted at the Constofed, Branch Office at Amritsar, he made credit sales to two affiliated society members of the Constofed as per procedure laid down. He was transferred from the Amritsar Branch in the year 1981. In the year 1994, two arbitration cases were filed against the societies to whom credit sales had been made by the petitioner. Two separate awards were passed by the Arbitrator on 11.3.1994 and the petitioner was held liable to pay. Against the aforesaid two awards, the petitioner filed appeals before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies which were dismissed by a common order only on the ground of limitation. The petitioner thereafter filed two separate revision petitions against the order which had been accepted by order dated 8.10.1996 (Annexure-P.1). In this order the revisional authority has clearly held as follows : "After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the documents on record I find that an arbitration reference were made by the MD of the Constofed for a stale claim for the year 1981 against the petitioner and no resolution were passed by the BOD/Administrator which is in violation of principles of natural justice. Moreover, after the petitioner was posted out of Amritsar office it was the duty of officer who followed him to make recoveries and in case there was any difficulty get arbitration proceedings initiated. The petitioner could not be proceeded against after a lapse of 11-12 years. Therefore, both the orders of lower courts are set aside. However, Constofed is at liberty to recover the amounts in accordance with law/rules." This order was challenged by Constofed in C.W.P. No. 11209 of 1997. The writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 10.11.1997. (Annexure-P.2) with the following observations : "We have heard counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned order, we find no ground to interfere with the findings of fact recorded therein. The State Government has clearly found that it was not respondent 5 but his successor who had to effect recovery for the goods that had been supplied to the society. It is well settled that this court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution does not sit as a court of appeal. We, therefore, decline to interfere in the matter and consequently dismiss the writ petition. No order as to costs." In spite of the finality of the proceedings in favour of the petitioner, the respondents have passed order Annexures-P. 6 and P. 7 dated 28.5.2004 and 20.7.2004 respectively. By order dated 28.5.2004, it has been held that the petitioner is only responsible for the loss as he never issued stocks to the Agriculture Service Societies and rather made fictitious sale/entries. Consequently, five increments of the petitioner were ordered to be stopped without cumulative effect. Recovery was also ordered to be made from him. The aforesaid order was modified by order dated 20.7.2004. The stoppage of five annual grade increments without cumulative effect besides recovery of loss was changed to that of reduction to five lower stages in the time scale of pay without cumulative effect, besides, recovery of loss along with interest. The petitioner retired from service on 30.4.2005. Till date, the respondents have not released the retiral benefits of the petitioner.
(3.) The respondents have filed a written statement. It is pleaded that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Board of Directors. The petitioner has been held to be responsible for the lapse by the competent authority which has caused loss to Constofed. Therefore, the respondents were entitled to recover the amount which has been recovered. They are also entitled to withhold the retiral benefits.;