IN THE HON’BLE COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA,

AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No.17386 of 2023

Kapil Kumar and other ….Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others ….Respondents

INDEX

Sr DATE PARTICULARS PAGE

No. No.
 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No.17386 of 2023

Kapil Kumar and other ….Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others …..Respondents

Written Statement by way of Affidavit of

respondent District Manager, Hafed, Rohtak on
behalf of respondents

PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS

1. That it is respectfully submitted that the present petition is pending

consideration in this Hon’ble Court and is now fixed for hearing on

04.03.2025.

2. That it is respectfully submitted that the petitioners have filed the

instant Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 in the nature of

Certiorari for quashing/setting aside the impugned Recovery Order

bearing No. Hafed/Admn/A-7/2028 dated 26.05.2023 passed by the

answering Respondent.
3. That it is respectfully submitted that the petitioners have approached

this Hon’ble Court challenging the order of recovery issued against

them vide order dated 26.05.2023, whereas the matter of the fact is

that this order merely implementation of the orders of punishment

passed against the different petitioners in different chargesheets

issued against them wherein they have been found guilty and

consequently order of punishment has been passed against them.

Each and every chargesheet has different situations and

circumstances and the Hon’ble High Court cannot sit upon the merits

and demerits of individual chargesheets issued against the

petitioners when the petitioners themselves have not challenged the

chargesheets and the consequent orders of punishments passed

against them and have simply challenged the order of recovery issued

against them in consequence of the punishments passed against them

in the chargesheets issued against them.

4. That it is further respectfully submitted that the petitioners have

approached this Hon’ble Court citing the fact that there is no

alternate remedy available to them against the order of recovery

passed against them, whereas the reality as it stands is that out of the

four petitioners in the present case three of them have already

preferred an appeal before the board of administrators of HAFED,

 details regarding the appeals preferred by three petitioners is given

below:

(1) Petitioner No.1 Kapil Kumar: Appeal preferred on 05.04.2023.

(Annexure P-16)

(2) Petitioner No.2 Sandeep Kumar: Appeal preferred on

06.04.2023 (Annexure P-23)

(3) Petitioner No. 3 Vichitra Pal: Appeal preferred (Annexure P-31)

A perusal of the abovementioned facts would reveal that out

of the four petitioners in the present petition three of them have

already preferred an appeal against the orders passed against them in

the chargesheets issued against them and even the petitioner No.4

has the remedy of appeal available to them, it is further pertinent to

mention here that once the petitioners have efficacious remedy

available to them and are the same is already pending adjudication

the petitioners have wrongfully approached the Hon’ble High court

citing that they do not have any alternate remedy available to them.

Once the appeals have been preferred and are pending adjudication

in front of the board of administrators the present petition deserves

to be dismissed on this score alone.

5. That it is respectfully submitted that the petitioners have relied upon

the order passed by this Hon’ble High Court in case titled “Jasbir
Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others” i.e. CWP 6385 of 2018. As far

as the order passed in abovementioned petition is concerned the

facts and circumstances in the present petition have a difference of

day and night between them. As in the case of Jasbir Singh the

petitioners had filed a civil suit challenging the order of punishment

passed against him in the chargesheet and a competent court had set

aside the order of punishment passed against him and ordered that

the recovery made against the chargesheet and consequent recovery

are not legally maintainable and held that the petitioner was innocent

and the department did not file any appeal against the setting aside of

the order of punishment and the order of dismissing the punishment

attained finality. Hence the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to pass an

order allowing the abovementioned petition. Operative part of the

order passed in CWP 6385 of 2018 is being replicated below for the

kind perusal of the Hon’ble High Court ;

“The punishment, as inflicted, was challenged before the

Civil Court and the same has been set aside vide judgment

and decree dated 29.10.2015, which has attained finality as

the respondent—Corporation did not challenge the same in

appeal thereto. The order of punishment had directed that the

loss of `30,87,915/- be recovered from the petitioner for which

 civil suit for recovery had been filed and the same stood

dismissed on the ground that the suit was not maintainable. In

appeal filed, the matter was remanded back with a direction to

the trial court to give findings on all the issues framed. The trial

court re-affirmed its decision and and dismissed the suit for

recovery, which has again attained finality. The petitioner

herein despite being successful in the civil suit challenging

the order of punishment, whereby his grade pay had been

lowered and recovery proceedings against him having been

dismissed and attained finality, is still seeking relief from

the respondent Corporation in so far refund of recovery of

4,45,019/- that was deducted from his pay and the

consequential reliefs. In the opinion of the Court, there is no

basis for the respondents to retain the amount of 4,45,019/-,

deducted from the salary of the petitioner, considering the

fact that the order of punishment stood set aside by the

competent court and the suit for recovery brought against

him also stood dismissed.

A perusal of the abovementioned order passed by the Hon’ble

High Court in CWP 6385 of 2018 paints a clear picture of the

difference between the present petition filed by the petitioners and

 the order passed by the court in the case cited by them. As in the

present case the appeals preferred by the petitioners are pending

adjudication and in the CWP 6385 of 2018 the recovery was already

made from the salary of the petitioner and the petitioner challenged

the punishment order passed against him in the civil court and the

same was set aside by the civil court, whereas in the present matter

the petitioners have directly approached this Hon’ble High Court to

get the quashing of the order of recovery passed against them

without even challenging the chargesheets or the orders of

punishments passed against them by the concerned authorities.

Hence this present writ petition neither is on the parity of the case

mentioned by them nor it is maintainable in its present form in the

Hon’ble High Court.

6. It is further pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble High Court

has passed an order of staying the recovery order annexure P-42

relying on the judgement discussed above. The order passed on the

last date of hearing is being replicated below for the kind perusal of

the Hon’ble High Court:

‘The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article

226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the

nature of certiorari for quashing of the impugned recovery order

 bearing No.Hafed/Admn/A-7/2028 dated 26.05.2023 (Annexure

P-42) passed by respondent No.2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance

upon an order dated 23.03.2023 passed in CWP-6385-2018

titled as Jasvir Singh vs. State of Haryana & Others. Notice of

motion for 11.12.2023.

In the meantime, impugned order 26.05.2023 (Annexure P-

42) vide which recovery was ordered to be effected shall remain

stayed till the next date of hearing. 10.08.2023.

As discussed in para No.5 of the preliminary submissions the

present petition is altogether different from the fact and

circumstances in the CWP No. 6385 of 2018 and the petitioners have

mislead the Hon’ble High Court relying upon this judgment, in light of

the same the stay on the order of recovery passed against the

petitioners deserves to be vacated and the petition itself deserves to

be dismissed.

7. That it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners have not even

challenged the chargesheets issued against them in the present writ

petition, each and every chargesheet has it’s own facts and

circumstance and just because an order directing the recovery from

all the employees against whom orders of punishment have been

 passed under various chargesheet is passed that is no basis to club all

the chargesheets and deal with them together under one writ

petition without even challenging the orders passed in those

chargesheets.

8. That it is further respectfully submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme

court has in case titled “Uttar Pradesh v Man Mohan Nath Sinha,

(2009) 8 SCC 310” has held that

‘15. The legal position is well settled that the power of judicial

review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the

decision-making process. The court does not sit in judgment

on merits of the decision. It is not open to the High Court to

reappreciate and reappraise the evidence led before the

inquiry officer and examine the findings recorded by the

inquiry officer as a court of appeal and reach its own

conclusions. In the instant case, the High Court fell into

grave error in scanning the evidence as if it was a court of

appeal. The approach of the High Court in consideration of the

matter suffers from manifest error and, in our thoughtful

consideration, the matter requires fresh consideration by the

High Court in accordance with law. On this short ground, we send

the matter back to the High Court.’

 A perusal of the above mentioned judgement clearly states that the

courts cannot act as courts of appeal against the orders passed by

competent authorities and can only interfere if there is grave and

disorderly injustice in the way that the inquiry proceedings have

been undertaken by the enquiry officer, it cannot sit upon the merits

and demerits of the case and act as a court of appeal. Whereas in the

present case there is already a remedy available to the petitioners

and three of the them have already preferred the same and the same

are pending adjudication, in such a scenario where there is already a

remedy available and under adjudication, the present petition is

nothing but abuse of the process of law and the same deserves to be

dismissed as this Hon’ble High Court is not a court of appeal against

any order passed in the departmental enquiry and furthermore not

so more when there is an alternate remedy available to the

petitioners.

9. That it is respectfully submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

reiterated the view that if there is an alternate remedy available the

petitioners should first exhaust those remedies before coming to the

Hon’ble High Courts same has been held in case titled “Assistant

Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others v Glaxo Smith Kline

Consumer Health Care Limited20” 20 AIR 2020 SC 2819 17 PART C,

 the Court noted that “although it can entertain a petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution, it must not do so when the

aggrieved person has an effective alternate remedy available in

law. However, certain exceptions to this “rule of alternate remedy”

include where, the statutory authority has not acted in accordance

with the provisions of the law or acted in defiance of the fundamental

principles of judicial procedure; or has resorted to invoke provisions,

which are repealed; or where an order has been passed in violation of

the principles of natural justice. Applying this formulation, the High

Court noted that the appellant has an alternate remedy available

under the GST Act and thus, the petition was not maintainable.”

Similarly in the present petition the petitioners have

alternate remedy available to them and the present petition is not

maintainable is hence not maintainable, as neither they have

exhausted the alternate remedy available to them nor they have

actually challenged the chargesheets or the enquiry reports in such a

scenario the petition is in no way maintainable in its present form.

10. That it is respectfully submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme court in

the land mark case of “Civil Appeal No 1155 of 2021 (Arising out

of SLP(C) No 1688 of 2021) M/s Radha Krishan Industries Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.” laid down the principles

regarding the maintainability of writ petitions where there is

alternate remedy available the relevant portion of the judgement is

being replicated below for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble High Court

“27 The principles of law which emerge are that :

(i)The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs

can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental

rights, but for any other purpose as well;

(ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ

petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the

High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is

available to the aggrieved person;

(iii)Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where

(a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a

fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution;

(b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural

justice;

(c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction;

(d) the vires of a legislation is challenged;

(iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court

of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an

 appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be

entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by

law;

(v)When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes

the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability,

resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before

invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the

Constitution.

(vi) This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of

policy, convenience and discretion; and In cases where there are

disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline

jurisdiction in a writ petition.

A perusal of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court regarding the maintainability of a writ petition where an

alternate remedy is available point out 4 circumstances wherein the

courts should interfere even if there is an alternate remedy available.

The first being (a) the writ petition has been filed for

the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of

the Constitution, whereas in the present case the petitioners have

neither challenged the chargesheets nor the consequent punishments

passed against them in those numerous chargesheets. Whereas the

order of recovery passed against them vide Annexure P-42 is neither

illegal nor suffers from any defects and certainly does not violate any

of the fundamental rights of the petitioner.

The second being (b) there has been a violation of the

principles of natural justice. As far as the order being challenged in

the present petition is concerned it does not violate any of the

principles of the natural justice, if the petitioners were aggrieved

with the chargesheets filed against them and the consequent

punishments and the same would have been challenged. It is only

after that the question of whether there has been an adherence to the

principles of natural justice or not during the departmental inquiries

would have arisen and even if we take whatever has been mentioned

in the petitioners as gospel truth (even though specifically denied)

the petitioners still have the right to dispute the same in the appeal

pending before the Board of Directors of HAFED.

Third and fourth being (c) the order or proceedings are wholly

without jurisdiction; (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged

whereas in the present case neither the jurisdiction of the authorities

that passed the impugned order is in challenge nor the ultra vires of

the legislation.
 Hence, the conclusion is the present case is not covered under

any of the exceptions as provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and

the same is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.

11. That it is respectfully submitted that the petitioners have been

working as Field Inspectors (Store), Store Keepers and they have

been charge-sheeted by the Answering Respondent for committing

certain acts of omission and commission on account of loss of wheat

stocks stored at Matanhail District Jhajjar and shortage/less gain of

wheat stock Rabi 2012 including moisture cut in the dispatches of

wheat stock during the period of 2012-2016 and the respondents

have been ordered to recover amounts from salaries of petitioners.

12. That it is respectfully submitted that the Petitioner No. 1 Sh. Kapil

Kumar, FI(S), Hafed, Rohtak was Working as a storekeeper, at

Matanhail from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 he was Charge-sheeted

vide memo no. Hafed/Admn/A-6/643 (12.02.2015) with the

allegations of acts of omission and commission for less gain of 173.10

qtls valuing 2,92,773/- during wheat Rabi 2012. The Petitioner No.1

was again Charge-sheeted vide memo no.Hafed/Admn/A-6/4240,

with the order dated 22.11.2019 stated the allegations causing loss to

Hafed due to shortage of 4393.50 qtls due to moisture cuts and

dispatches in wheat stock during 01.04.2013-31.03.2014 and 75%

responsibility which comes to 3295.12 qtls valuing Rs. 62,58,295.

Furthermore, the loss was caused to Hafed due to shortage/less gain

of 4393.70 qtls and 15 % responsibility of Petitioner as Centre

Incharge comes up to 659.03 qtls amounting Rs.12,51,659/- and loss

of Rs.75,09,954 and @8% interest p.a. The petitioner No.1 has

submitted that he refused to get the stock unloaded due to moisture

in wheat at Matanhail mandi due to which the arthiyas of Matanhail

mandi threatened him. In this regard, he informed the SDO on

28.04.2012 but did not inform the District Manager, Hafed, Rohtak. It

is pertinent to mention here that 165 new polythene covers were

supplied at Matanhail on 30.6.2012 before the start of the rainy

season hence, the averments made by the petitioner regarding no

supply of polythene covers at Matanhail centre are incorrect. The

Phar was constructed at Matanhail centre for storage of wheat on the

recommendation of Petitioner No.1 Sh. Kapil Kumar, FI(S). It is the

duty and responsibility of the Petitioner to look after the construction

of phar as per the requirements of the season. He never informed the

Respondents of any shortcomings in the phar constructed at

Matanhail. So, he is fully responsible for this loss. The Total

chargesheets framed against Sh. Kapil Kumar, FI(S) = 8 (1.4.2013 to

till date) Total chargesheet dropped = 1 (1.4.2013 to till date).

 Furthermore appeal filed by the petitioner is already pending

adjudication to board of directors, HAFED.

13. That it is respectfully submitted that Petitioner No. 2 Sh. Sandeep

Deswal worked as Centre Incharge at Hafed hired Phar Bhalout and

later worked as Senior Accountant, Hafed D.O. Rohtak. The

Respondents issued a memo of Chargesheet bearing No.

Hafed/Admn/A-5/3089 dated 14.08.2020 on the allegation that he is

responsible for shortage and differential amount of 3791369 @10%.

A Notice was issued by the Respondent, on 01.02.2022 along with a

note of dissent under Rule 19.2(g) of Hafed CC Rules, 1988. On

31.03.2023 a Punishment order was issued by the Respondent

wherein a penalty of Rs.37,91,369/- with @10% interest. It is

pertinent to mention that there is no reasonable justification for the

damages, lapse, and irregularity in the duties of the petitioner. The

petitioner has not justified or clarified the natural reasons for the

losses occurred. The plea of the petitioner about the natural reasons

as it has been stated in the petition, was not informed to the

Respondent DO Hafed. The losses have been calculated as the

responsibility of Petitioner No.2. Simply stating that the losses were

caused due to the natural reasons do not absolve him of the liabilities.
 Total chargesheets framed against Sh. Sandeep Deswal = 5 (1.4.2013

to till date) Total chargesheet dropped = 1 (1.4.2013 to till date).

14. That it is respectfully submitted Petitioner No. 3 Sh. Vichitra Pal,

TO(S) worked as Technical Officer (Storage) at Rohtak and Jhajjar and

later as Addl. Gen. Manager(Tech) at Hafed. A chargesheet dated

14.08.2020 was issued by Respondent on the allegation that wheat

stock got damaged due to lack of proper preservation in storage. The

petitioner was further held responsible for causing loss to Hafed due

to damage of 11335.55 qtls valuing Rs. 13,91,269/- along with

interest @10%. The Respondent issued a notice dated 01.02.2022

along with a note of dissent under Rule 19.2(g) of Hafed Common

Cadre Rules, 1988. A punishment order dated 31.03.2023 wherein a

Penalty to recover the amount of Rs.1,32,34,624/- @10% was issued.

The petitioner has contended that there was no irregularity on his

part in discharging his duty and stated that the wheat stock was

damaged due to negligence on the part of the department as no

proper attention was given to FI(S) to upgrade stocks. The petitioner

blamed it on the Dist. Manager for procuring poor quality, high

moisture stocks which were stored in low-lying, unscientific

locations. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner is the In-

charge of looking after the quality of wheat of whole the district. It

 was his responsibility to ask the FI(S) to maintain stock in good

condition. There was no complaint prior to the punishment order, in

this regard of procurement of low-level wheat during Rabi 2012. The

appeal filed by petitioner him before BOD Hafed is still lying pending.

15. That it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner No.4 Sh. Vinod

Arya was Working as FI(S) at Hafed Bhalout later working as

Manager, Hafed, Rohtak. The Respondent no. 2 issued a memo of

chargesheet dated 03.07.2020 on the allegation that there was excess

replacement of Bardana in wheat stocks i.e. more than the norms

during financial period and held responsible for loss on account of

excess replacement amounting to 605514/-. Another memo of

chargesheet dated 14.08.2020 on the allegation that there was a

shortage and differential amount due to damage of wheat stocks

stored in his custody at Hired Plint, Bhalout and held responsible for

Rs. 1,64,29,265/- along with @10% interest. According to the memo

dated 14.09.2021, Respondent No. 2 issued a notice along with

dissent under Rule 19.2(g) of Hafed Common Cadre Rules, 1988. The

petitioner has stated there was no irregularity on his part, if there

was any shortage it was not because of negligence on his part but due

to storage of wheat on the unscientific plinth and natural reasons,

beyond human control. The petitioner No.4 wrote a letter to the

 District Manager, Hafed, Rohtak on 21.8.2012 regarding the

accumulation of water due to rain, and drainage of water was

requested. The Respondent wrote letters to Smt. Poonam, the plinth

owner vide letter No. 2103-05 dated 22.8.2012, No. 3467-70 dated

6.12.2012, and No. 4231-34 dated 25.1.2013 regarding repair of phar

which was damaged due to rains. The petitioner has to look after the

wheat stock and keep the stock in well condition saving from rains,

etc the damages so caused are the responsibility of the Petitioner

because adequate measures were not taken by him.

16. That it is further respectfully submitted that the inquiry of all the

cases was entrusted to Sh. R.C. Sharma, HCS (Retd.) for conducting

the regular departmental inquiry into the charges leveled against the

petitioners, who, in his inquiries submitted that the charges against

the petitioners were not proved. It is pertinent to mention here that

the inquiry officer simply wrote down all the defences pleaded by the

petitioner and has taken them to be gospel truth and has passed

orders exonerating all of them, not a single aspect of negligence or

facts has been dealt with in these inquiries, simply trusting the words

of the petitioner without an iota of inquiry into them lead to passing

of these orders by the inquiry officer, consequently the competent

authority did not agree with the findings of the Inquiry officer and

gave a dissent note to the petitioners on the following grounds:

 That the petitioners have failed to perform their duties sincerely

due to which a huge amount of loss was caused to Hafed.

 Due to lack of proper supervision wheat stocks got damaged and

were not accepted by the FCI besides there was less gain.

 Lack of proper preservation of wheat stocks caused huge

shortage/damage of the stocks.

 The stock were found to be less in weight when a PV was

conducted by the committee constituted by the Head Office.

 The petitioners were found responsible for differential amount of

damaged wheat stocks which was auctioned and sold. This stock

had to be auctioned in the open market due to which Hafed

suffered huge losses.

Thus, on the basis of the above mentioned grounds, the

competent authority imposed a penalty to recover the amount of loss

from the petitioners i.e. petitioner no. 1 to be responsible for the loss

of Rs. 2,72,54,128/-, petitioner no. 2 to be responsible for the loss of

Rs. 37,91,369/-, petitioner no. 3 to be responsible for the loss of Rs.

1,32,34,624/- and petitioner no. 4 to be responsible for the loss of Rs.

1,64,29,265/-alongwith 10% interest per annum from the date of

 detection. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners have not

challenged the chargesheets initiated against them in the present

petition if that had been the case each and individual chargesheet

would have been discussed at merits but the same is not the case in

the present petition hence the present writ petition in its form

deserves to be dismissed on that ground alone.

17. That it is respectfully submitted that the damage to work or goods in

process or to any property or the establishment, or the habitual

neglect of work or gross or habitual negligence of the employees will

amount to penalties as mentioned in Rules 28 and Rule 29 of Hafed

Common Cadre Rules, 1988 which have been rightfully attributed to

the petitioners. Rule 28 defines Gross Misconduct and the same is

being replicated below for the kind perusal of the Hon’ble High Court:

Rule 28: Gross Misconduct

The expression: "Gross Misconduct" shall include any or all of the

following acts of omissions and commissions on the part of an
employee for punishment to the employee:-

a) Dishonesty, fraud, misappropriation, embezzlement and

misutilisation of the funds of the society or Apex Society or any of
its constituents, or committing of any offence under Indian Penal
Code relating to the society/ Apex society and its constituents.

b) Engaging in any trade or business outside the scope of his

duties.
c) Unauthorised disclosures of information regarding the affairs
of the society to any of its customers or any other person
concerned with the business of the society which is confidential
or the disclosures of which is likely to be prejudicial to the
interest of the society.
of which is likely to the prejudicial to the interest of the society.

d)Drunkenness or tiotous or disorderly in indecent behaviour in

public place and in the premises of the society.

e)Willful damage of attempt to cause damage to the property of

the society/Apex Society or to any of its customers.

f)Advertising the achievements of any union, Association etc., of

the employee, recognised or otherwise within the society
premises without pamphlets, hand bilis, calendars ete,
highlighting the activities achievements ete, of the union except
in accordance with the provisions the prior permission of the
management in writing or pasting of any of any rule of law for
the time being in force.

g)Willful insubordination or disobedience of any lawful and

reasonable order of a superior or misbehaviour with any
employee of the society/Hafed/Government.

h) Giving or taking bribe or illegal gratification from customer

or any employce of the society.

i) Habitual doing of any act which amount to minor misconduct

as defined

below:-

"HABITUAL" means a course of action taken or persisted aticast

on three previous occasions and censure or warning have been
administered and adverse remarks have been entered against
him.

j)Willful lowering down in performance of work;

k) Playing cards/gambling or betting in the premises of the

society;
 l) Doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the society or
negligence involving or likely to involve the society in loss;

m)Taking part in any political party/activity or otherwise

interfering or using the influence in any election to the Board,
any committee or sub-committee of the Directors;

n) Punishment from à Court of Law for any offence involving

moral turpitudo:

o) Absence without leave or over staying sanctioned leave

without sufficient ground for more than 10 days;

p) Neglect of work, negligence in performance of duties or

habitual negligence;

q)Breach of any Rule or business of the society or Institution for

the running of any business;

г) Holding or attempting to hold or attending any meeting in the

premises of the society without the permission of the
management,

s)Seeking election to a committee of any cooperative

society/Gram Panchayat/ Municipal Committee/ Vidhan Sabha
ete.

t)Attempt to collect or collecting money within the premises of

the society without the prior permission of the management or
except as allowed by any rule or law for the time being in force.

That the present petitioners are liable under Rule 28 (b) and 28

(p) and are rightfully held liable for the recoveries as ordered by the

respondent department and there grievance of being aggrieved by

the order passed in already pending adjudication before the Board of

Administrators.
18. That it is respectfully submitted that the right to appeal against the

orders passed by the respondent department has been enshrined

under HAFED Common Cadre Rules 1988 under Rule 33 the same is

being replicated below for the kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court:

33. Appeal :- Order imposing the penalty under these rules shall

be appealable to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana.

i) Where no appeal is provided against the penalty, the

employee concerned may make a representation

against the imposition of the penalty to the

B.O.D./B.O.A. Such representation be made within 30

days of the receipt of the order imposing the penalty.

A perusal of the Rule 33 of the Rules 1988 clearly states

that the petitioners have the remedy of appeal available to them in

the present case and the same has been already preferred by three of

the petitioners as per the writ petition itself and the competent

authority has not passed any order of stay on the recovery and the

appeals are pending adjudication.

REPLY ON MERITS:
1. That the contents of para No. 1 of the writ petition are admitted to

extent that the petitioners are residents of the State of Haryana and

the citizen of India. However, no legal right of the petitioners has been

infringed which could entitle him to invoke the extra ordinary writ

jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226/227 of the

Constitution of India.

2. That the contents of para No. 2 of the writ petition are admitted being

matter of record.

3. That the contents of para No. 3 of the writ petition are wrong and

hence denied.

A. Matter of record.

B. All the charges are as per the policy of Govt. of Haryana issued by

Food and supply department. It's the duty of Aartiya/ Commission

agent to protect the wheat purchased in Mandi and petitioner No-

1 has the Right to reject the damage / High moisture wheat

according to the policy during unloading at godown point.

C. That sometime when wheat arrival is beyond the expiations then

the wheat need to be stored on the mandi Phar and mandi phar is

a pakka phar. This practice is a routine practice. Proper stock

Article has been provided to petitioner No-1 for safe storage. So if

 wheat damage that all because of negligence in duty of petitioner

No-1.

D. As well as the letter written by petitioner No-1 to SDM is concern

that is a matter of Record and as well as the poor and uncleaned

stock is concern to the petitioner No 1 has full rights to reject the

truck which does not match the policy specification during

unloading in godown.

E. Matter of record.

F. Matter of record.

G. Matter of record.

H. Matter of record.

I. Matter of record.

J. Matter of record.

K. Matter of record.

L. That the shortage in the wheat weight come because of the

negligence in the duty of petitioner No-1.

M. Matter of record.

N. Managing Director has right to reverse the order of Inquiry officer

and as claimed by petitioner No-1 that all the losses were because

of natural calamity it all because of negligence in duty.

Petitioner No. 2
A.

4. That the contents of para No. 4 of the writ petition are wrong and

hence denied in view of the preliminary submissions made above

which are not being reiterated for the sake of brevity.

5. That the contents of para No. 5 of the writ petition are wrong hence

denied.

i. That in reply to the contents of this para, it is submitted that the

competent authority i.e. respondent no. 2 is not bound by the

report of the inquiry officer. The respondent no. 2 did not agree

with the findings of the inquiry officer and passed a well reasoned

dissent note making the petitioners responsible for the loss

caused to the federation after due application of mind.

ii. That in reply to the contents of this para of the writ petition, the

reply given in the above para may kindly be read as part of reply to

this para also.

iii. That the contents of this para are wrong and hence denied. The

polythene covers were provided to the storekeepers well in time

before the start of the rainy season.

iv. That the contents of this para are wrong and hence denied. The

wheat stock was purchased and stored during Rabi 2012 and 2013
 and became damaged in 2015 due to the negligence of the

petitioners and not due to prolonged storage.

v. That the contents of this para are wrong and hence denied. The

polythene covers were provided to the storekeepers well in time

before the start of the rainy season. The allegations made by the

petitioners are mere ipse dixit devoid of any strong or convincing

reasons.

vi. That in reply to the contents of this para of the writ petition, the

reply given in the above para may kindly be read as part of reply to

this para also.

vii. That the contents of this para are wrong and hence denied. That it

is the duty of the FI (Store)/ Storekeeper to keep the stock in good

condition and to protect the same from rains and also to give gains

as per norms but the storekeeper petitioners failed to do so which

is a serious lapse on their part and for which punishment was

rightly imposed upon them by the competent authority i.e.

respondent no. 2.

viii. That the contents of this para are wrong and hence denied. That at

the time of dispatch of wheat stock to FCI, the moisture contents

are measured by the FCI and: are written on the Weight Check
 Memos. The storekeepers record the moisture on the register

maintained by them at the time of receipt of the wheat stocks.

ix. That the contents of this para are wrong and hence denied. That

during storage, the weight of the wheat bags is always increased

due to moisture during rainy season and thus gain is required to

be given in the wheat bags by the storekeepers.

x. That the contents of this para are wrong and hence denied. The

hired phar was ready for safe storage of wheat as the phar was

built up with pacca bricks in the presence and supervision of the

storekeeper.

xi. That the contents of this para are wrong and hence denied. That it

was the duty of the storekeeper petitioners to drain out the water

with the help of the security guards but they failed to do so due to

their negligence and hence they are fully responsible for the loss

caused to the federation.

xii. That the contents of this para are wrong and hence denied. That if

the water was accumulated on the plinth due to heavy rains, then,

there were security guards deployed for the safety of the stocks

and it was the duty of the petitioners to get the accumulated water

to be drained out from the phar with the help of the security
 guards but they failed to do so which shows sheer negligence on

their part.

xiii. That the contents of this para are wrong and hence denied. The

wheat stock was purchased and stored during Rabi 2012 and 2013

and became damaged in 2015 due to the negligence of the

petitioners and not due to prolonged storage.

xiv. That the contents of this para are wrong and hence denied. That

there is no such record available with the District Office of Hafed

and no such letter was written by the petitioners to the District

Manager, Hafed. The petitioners have failed to substantiate their

claim by placing on record any strong and convincing

documentary proof in this regard.

xv. That the contents of this para are wrong and hence denied in view

of the preliminary submissions made: herein above which may be

read as part and parcel of this para also.

6. That the contents of Para No. 6 of the civil writ petition are wrong

and hence denied. That the action of the answering respondent was

wholly justified and suffers from no infirmity. The action was taken

after adopting due procedure and after considering all the facts of the

case, the inquiry report and the documents on record. The allegations
 made by the petitioners are mere ipse dixit devoid of strong and

convincing reasons.

7. That in reply to para 7 of the writ petition, it is submitted that no law

point is involved in the present writ petition which requires:

adjudication by this Hon'ble Court.

8. That the contents of Para No. 8 of the present civil writ petition are

denied for want knowledge.

9. That the contents of Para No. 9 of the civil writ petition are wrong

and hence denied. Further, it is submitted that no fundamental right

of the petitioners have been infringed which could entitled them to

invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court under

Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore in view of the averments and the submissions made

above it is most respectfully prayed that the present petition is liable to be

dismissed and in view of the fact that the appeals filed by the petitioners to

the Board of Administrators HAFED and no stay has been granted to the

petitioners in the same the stay order passed by the Hon’ble High Court

deserves to be vacated in the interest of justice.

Date:

Place:

Verification:
 Verified that the contents of para no. 1 to 7 of my above-said

written statements are true and correct to my knowledge and

information as derived from the official record. No part of it is false and

nothing material has been kept conceal therein from this Hon’ble Court.

Place:

Date: