M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) This judgment shall dispose of instant petition bearing C.W.P. No. 11662 of 2004 and other 29 connected writ petitions (for details see footnote at the end of this judgment) as common question of law and facts have been raised. For understanding the contour of controversy, the facts are being referred from C.W.P. No. 11662 of 2004.
(2.) Challenge in this bunch of petitions is to the charge sheet issued by the Punjab State Co -operative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited (for brevity, 'the Markfed') leveling allegation that the petitioners in connivance with other staff are responsible for the shortage of paddy, which has been allegedly embezzled. There are allegations that the petitioner by his acts of omission and commission has caused huge loss amounting to crores of rupees. For the sake of convenience, the charge sheet issued to the petitioner in C.W.P. No. 11662 of 2004, is referred and the same reads as under: CHARGES IN BRIEF AGAINST SH. M.P. DOGRA, FO/BR INCHARGE. He is alleged to be guilty for causing loss of Rs. 1,81,41,199.77 relating to paddy crop 97 -98 in connivance with S/Shri Raj Singh, F.O. and Gurcharan Singh, F.O. (Retd.), which is a serious mis -conduct on his part. Managing Director Markfed CHARGES IN DETAIL AGAINST SHRI M.P.DOGRA, FO/BR. INCHARGE. While working as Branch Incharge in Markfed Branch Office, Muktsar, he was the joint custodian of following rice shellers with S/Shri Raj Singh, F.O., Gurcharan Singh, F.O. (Retd.) relating to paddy crop 97 -98 as per detail below: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sr. No. Name of the Sheller Joint custody with - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1. M/s Abhisek Industries Muktsar Raj Singh, F.O. (U/S) 2. M/s M.L. Kalra Rice & Gen. Mills, Muktsar. -Do - 3. M/s Paradise Rice Mill, Muktsar -Do - 4. M/s Anil Rice Traders, Gurcharan Singh, F.O.(Retd.) 5. M/s Krishna Jai Trading Co., Muktsar -Do - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Upto 31.12.2001, following quantity of stocks were found short in these mills valuing Rs. 1,81,41,199.77. The detail of sheller -wise shortage is as under: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sr. Name of rice mill Paddy Rice Loss @ 653.80 per No. Bags Wt. Qtl. Rice PR - 106 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1. Abhishek Inds. 397 258.05 1,68,713.09 2. Anil Rice Traders 510 331.50 2,16,634.70 3. M.L. Kalra & Rice 3964 2576.60 16,84,581.08 Gen. Mill 4. Paradise Rice Mill 36751 23888.15 156,18,072.47 5. Krishna Ji Trading Co. 919 597.35 3,90,547.43 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 42,541 27,651.65 1,80,78,648.77 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IR -108 1. Anil Rice Traders 156 101.40 62,551 @ 616.87 He is, thus, alleged to be guilty for causing loss of Rs. 1,81,41,199.77 relating to paddy crop 97 -98 in connivance with S/Shri Raj Singh, F.O. and Gurcharan Singh, F.O. (Retd.), which is a serious mis -conduct on his part. Sd/ - Managing Director Markfed
(3.) According to the assertions made by the petitioner, when paddy is entrusted by the Markfed to the miller for the purposes of milling rice then its physical and actual control always remain with the miller. In that regard reference has been made to the agreement entered into by the Markfed with the miller as also arbitration clause in the agreement, which is attached as Annexure P -l with C.W.P. No. 581 of 2005. It has also been pointed out that the letter of the Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab, dated 11/16.12.2002 (P -7), also clarifies that joint custody with the miller by Markfed is only notional as possession remains with the miller only who store the paddy in their premises. Therefore, involving officers of the procurement institutions by the investigating agencies while investigating cases against the miller was stated to be misconceived and fallacious. Taking notice of the aforementioned letter of the worthy Chief Secretary, this Court has issued notice of motion on 5.8.2004, staying further proceedings. The order of the Division Bench reads as under: Mr. T.P. Singh refers to the directions issued by the then Chief Secretary in the letter dated 11/16.12.2002 (Annexure P -7), regarding registration of cases pertaining to misappropriation of paddy stock. The aforesaid letter is in continuation of an earlier letter dated 21.8.2002 in which the Chief Secretary had requested various authorities to book unscrupulous rice millers who had misappropriated huge quantities of paddy stored with them. When charge sheets had been issued against a large number of employees, the Chief Secretary issued letter dated 11/16 December, 2004 mentioning therein that involving officers while investigating cases against the millers seems to be misconceived and fallacious, because for all intents and purposes, the paddy is under the control of the millers as it is stored in their premises. He also noticed a judgment rendered by C.J.M., Barnala in which it has been held that where the miller had removed the stock of paddy with intent of misappropriation without the consent of procuring agency, only the miller is liable for criminal action. Relying upon the aforesaid, Mr. T.P. Singh submits that the issuance of charge sheet (Annexure P -5) is an abuse of process of law. Notice of motion for November 5, 2004. Further proceedings pursuant to Annexure P -5 are stayed.;