- (1.) By this common order, two writ petitions being Civil Writ Petition Nos. 5880 of 1992 and 6086 of 2000 can be decided together. For facility of reference, facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 5880 of 1992.
(2.) The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of enquiry report dated 22.8.1988, Annexure P-7 whereby it was held that the petitioner is responsible for the shortage of fertilizer. Vide order dated 18.11.1988, Annexure P-11 petitioner was dismissed from service. It was further ordered that he will make good the loss of 200 bags of Urea and 55 bags of DAP. It will be apposite to reproduce the following portion of the dismissal order :- "The case relates basically to shortage of fertilizer of which Sh. Bharti was the joint custodian. While the enquiry has shown that the fertilizer had been received in unstandard form, yet it is equally clear that the shortage based on results of earlier test weighments would have been less by almost 200 bags in the case of Urea. Moreover, there is also evidence to suggest that Sh. Bharti aided and abetted the process of pilferage and was in fact caught red handed while doing so by the Sr. Branch Officer. The same position almost held good in respect of DAP. Even if the defence version is accepted, there is still a shortage of 55 bags which is not satisfactorily accounted for. On the other hand, the Sr. Branch Officer, co-accused in this case has clearly stated that he has received complaints about sale of 55 bags of fertilizer by Shri Bharti. In these circumstances, it is clear that this official was actively involved in the pilferage of markfed stocks and that shortages accruing were certainly abnormal. This conclusion is further corroborated by the subsequent conduct of this official, who while associating himself with the proceedings of the Committee chose to absent himself when these were finalised and was expected to sign the conclusions arrived at. His remaining absent till he was posted elsewhere also indicates his anxiety to be away from the scene of his misdeeds. In the circumstances, where a Markfed employee has actively connived at the pilferage of Markfed stocks of which he was supposed to be the custodian, and where there are no mitigating circumstances for the type of shortage that have been depicted, I have not been able to take a lenient view and accordingly order that he may be dismissed from service. In addition, he shall make good the loss for 200 bags of Urea and 55 bags of DAP which in any case has been caused by him after discounting for shortness on account of receipt of unstandard material." Thereafter vide resolution dated 8.5.1990, Annexure P-12, appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Vide Annexure P-13 revision preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed. A prayer has been made that along with order of dismissal, orders passed in appeal and revision be also quashed.
(3.) Notice of motion was issued. Reply was filed, in which it was stated that petitioner was named as an accused in FIR No. 6 dated 8.1.1981 registered at Police Station Moga under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.;