Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurnam Singh vs Punjab State Warehousing ... on 27 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
126 CWP-16064-2022
DATE OF DECISION: 27.07.2022
GURNAM SINGH ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION AND ANR
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
Present: Mr. J.P.Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Sharma, Advocate for respondents.
****
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statutory
appeal of the petitioner is yet to be decided by respondent No.2 while the
punitive order dated 30.06.2022 effecting recovery from the petitioner is being
implemented. He also submits that in a similar petition bearing CWP-33348-
2019 titled as Bodh Raj Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation and
another decided on 18.11.2019, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had
directed that the appeal be decided within 03 months and till then no recovery
is to be effected from the petitioner.
Issue notice to the respondents.
At the asking of the Court, Mr. Anil Sharma, Advocate accepts
notice on behalf of the respondents.
Heard.
The case of the petitioner appears to be covered by the judgment
of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bodh Raj Vs. Punjab State
Warehousing Corporation and another (supra). The order is reproduced
hereunder:-
1 of 3
"As per pleadings on record, petitioner who
was serving on the post of Warehouse Manager under the
Punjab State Warehousing Corporation was imposed the
penalty of Rs.4,20,482/- vide order dated 22.08.2019
(Annexure P-2) passed by the Managing Director.
The short grievance raised in the petition is
that the statutory appeal dated 25.10.2019 (Annexure P-3)
preferred by the petitioner against the order of recovery is
not being dealt with and on the other hand, the punishment
of recovery is being made effective.
Counsel argues that the appeal that had been
preferred by the petitioner is towards resorting to a
statutory remedy available with the petitioner under the
statutory rules.
Having heard counsel for the petitioner and
having perused the pleadings on record, this Court is of the
considered view that the Appellate Authority is duty bound
to take a final decision on the appeal dated 25.10.2019 and
that too, within a stipulated time frame. Pendency of the
appeal on the one hand and enforcing the order of penalty
of recovery on the other, would certainly prejudice the
rights of the petitioner.
As such, without commenting on the merits of
the impugned order of recovery passed by the Punishing
Authority/Managing Director, the instant writ petition is
disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority i.e.
the 2nd respondent to take a final decision on the appeal
dated 25.10.2019 (Annexure P-3) expeditiously and in any
case within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Further recovery in pursuance to the order
dated 22.08.2019 (Annexure P-2) shall be held in abeyance
2 of 3
and would be subject to the final order that would be
passed by the Appellate Authority.
Disposed of."
Consequently the petition is disposed of with a direction to the
appellate authority (respondent No.2) to consider and decide the appeal in
accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt
of certified copy of the order.
Further recovery from the petitioner shall remain stayed and
would be subject to the final order that may be passed by the appellate
authority.
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
27.07.2022 JUDGE
SwarnjitS
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
3 of 3
