HEMANT GUPTA,J - (1.) THE challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P.3 dated 18.9.2001, whereby penalty of recovery of Rs. 2,90,484/- was imposed upon the petitioner. The challenge is also to the order Annexure P.9 dated 13.5.2002, whereby such order was affirmed in appeal and order dated 28.2.2005 (Annexure P.10), whereby the review against the said orders was dismissed.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders on the ground that the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner in the year 2000 on account of the loss for the stocks in the year 1980. It is thus, alleged that the charge-sheet has been issued after gross delay and laches and, therefore, such disciplinary proceedings are not sustainable. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Bani Singh and another, 1990(2) SLR 198. It is also argued that the petitioner was posted for a short duration at Shahkot and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be burdened with the liability of shortages as the other officers were responsible for maintaining the stocks in good condition. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the present petition. The judgment in Bani Singh's case (supra) has been examined by us in CWP No. 3254 of 2007 Amar Singh v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and others, 2008(2) SCT 437 (P&H), decided on 8.4.2008, wherein it has been held that the delinquent can succeed in seeking quashing of the disciplinary proceedings on the basis of delay and laches only on proof of prejudice. It was held to the following effect : "In the present case, the first charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner in the year 2003. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. It is open to the petitioner to prove during the course of enquiry proceedings any prejudice which he has suffered or likely to suffer on account of issuance of the charge-sheet in the year 2003. However, at this stage when the allegations are subject matter of enquiry, we do not find that any case is made out for quashing of the charge-sheets on the threshold. The charge-sheet is not stated to be without jurisdiction. As held in Chaman Lal Goyal's case (supra) that delay in issuing the charge-sheet itself is not a ground to quash the same. The delinquent has to prove the prejudice suffered by him at the time of serving of the charge-sheet. The question of delay in issuing the charge-sheet is a question of fact which requires to be raised before the disciplinary authority. On the face of it, the charge-sheet cannot be quashed merely on account of delay."
(3.) IN the present case, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court after the penalty of recovery of loss has been imposed upon him. He has not raised any plea of having suffered prejudice on account of issuance of charge-sheet before the departmental authorities. Therefore, the petitioner is precluded to raise a plea of having suffered any prejudice in the writ petition for the first time. Still further, the petitioner has not shown that a prejudice has been caused to the petitioner on account of issuance of the charge-sheet in the year 2000. Prejudice is a question of fact, which is required to be alleged and proved. By mere use of word prejudice, it cannot be inferred that delayed issuance of the charge-sheet is sufficient to quash the proceedings. Therefore, the first argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is without any merit.;