M.M. Punchhi, J. - (1.) WE have here three petitions, being OWP Nos. 6452, 6453 and 6456 of 1989, which are identical. They are on behalf of three Executive Officers against whom similar action has been initiated. Illustratively to quota one of them, we have Vijay Kumar's case in CWP No. 6456 of 1989. He was an Executive Officer -cum -Secretary, Market Committee, Raipur Rani in district Ambala in the year 1982 -83. For an action while posted there, he had to face proceedings under Section 29 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) on a show cause notice Annexure P -l, issued to him by the Chief Administrator of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, the pith and substance of which was that he was instrumental in purchasing substandard tarpaulins at inflated rates for the Market Committee for extraneous considerations, whereby loss was caused to the Committee to the tune of Rs. 60,160. On such notice, the Petitioner sent his reply and thereafter the Chief Administrator, - -vide order dated May 27, 1988, Annexure P -3, held Vijay Kumar Petitioner responsible for making good the loss of Rs. 60,160 to the Committee. The matter is stated to be in appeal at the instance of the Petitioner.
(2.) THEREAFTER a charge -sheet under Rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952, (for short, Punishment Rules) was served on Vijay Kumar Petitioner by the Chief; Administrator proposing to initiate proceedings against him on the statement of allegations appended therewith. The crux of those allegations is that he neither worked out the requirements of tarpaulins on any realistic basis nor did he place before the Administrator necessary data for determining the requirements of tarpaulins, before obtaining his orders for purchase thereof, which amounted to negligence and dereliction of duty on his part. Further, he did not positively inform the Administrator of the Market Committee that budgetary sanction for the purchase of tarpaulins was necessary under Rule 6 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962 (for short, the Rules) before incurring expenditure thereon, resulting in an unauthorized expenditure of Rs. 1,58,720. Still further, he failed to send a copy of the resolution whereby the Administrator approved the purchase of tarpaulins, to the Secretary of Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board as required under Rule 14(4) and thus acted in gross violation of the said Rules. Lastly, he malafide managed the whole process of purchase of tarpaulins in a great hurry and in utter disregard of norms of financial propriety, inasmuch as wide publicity in the newspaper was not given despite huge financial implications involved, sealed quotations were not invited, quotations were not opened by the competent authority etc. etc. and that he had caused a loss of Rs. 60,160 to the Market Committee, Raipur Rani. The other two Petitioners were similarly ordered i.e. Dharam Vir in CWP No. 6452 of 1989 to pay Rs. 33615 for the loss caused to the Market Committee, Pipli, and Prithvi Singh, in CWP No. 6453 of 1989 to pay Rs. 78,528 and Rs. 96000 in two account years for causing loss to the Market Committee, Ambala Cantt.
(3.) CHALLENGE in these petitions is two -fold. Firstly, it is urged that when the Petitioners have been ordered to make good the loss to the respective Committees under Section 29 of the Act, they cannot be made to face any enquiry under the Punishment Rules, Section 29(1) of the Act, being relevant, is quoted below: 29. Liability of member or employee of Committees or the Board. (1) Every person shall be liable for the loss, waste or misapplication of any money or other property belonging to a Committee, if such loss, waste or misapplication is proved to the satisfaction of the Board to be the direct consequence of his neglect or misconduct in the performance of duties as a member or an employee of the Committee, or an official managing the affairs of the committee and he may, after being given an opportunity by a written notice to show cause why he should not be required to make good the loss, be surcharged with the value of such property or the amount of such loss by the Board, and if the amount is not paid within one month from the expiry of the period of appeal prescribed by Sub -section (3) it shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue: Provided that no such person shall be called upon to show cause after the expiry of a period of four years from the occurrence of such loss, waste or misapplication or after the expiry of two years from the time of his ceasing to be a member of an employee or official whichever expires first.;