IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 212 CWP-15748-2021 Date of decision: 20.07.2026 Surinder Kumar .....Petitioner Versus Punjab State Warehousing Corporation & anr. .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present : Mr. J.P. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kanwar Pahul Singh, Advocate for the respondents. **** NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following reliefs:- “i. Quash order dated 20.08.19 (Annexure P-14) passed, in the review application of the respondent Corporation by Respondent No.2, against its orders dated 30.04.18 (Annexure P-10) partially accepting the appeal of the petitioner. ii. Quash Order dated 30.04.18 (Annexure P-10) passed, in the appeal of the petitioner, by Respondent No.2 i.e. the Appellate authority, partially accepting the appeal of the petitioner iii. Quash Orders dated 14.09.05 (Annexure P-7) passed by Respondent no.1 i.e. the Managing Director, (MD) Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (PSWC), - (punishing authority) imposing recovery of Rs.4,39,999.28. iv. Quash Dissenting Note dated NIL (Annexure P-4) disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer who had acquitted the petitioner of the charge and Show Cause Notice dated 27.04.05 (Annexure P-5) proposing to impose a recovery of Rs.7,43,567.01 on the petitioner. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was working as Technical Assistant, he was issued a VINAY 2026.07.22 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-15748-2021 -2- chargesheet dated 15.06.2004 (Annexure P-1), wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner, along with Sh. O.P. Goel, Warehouse Manager, are responsible for downgrading the rice crop year 1998-99 due to which the Corporation has suffered a financial loss of Rs.7,43,567.01 (including 50% incidental charges) on account of shortage of 176.50 quintals of rice and difference of rate as per book value and auction rate of the said rice. The petitioner submitted reply to the said chargesheet on 30.08.2004 (Annexure P-2) and thereafter, an inquiry officer was appointed, who submitted his report, however, the charges were not proved against the petitioner. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority dissented with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer, vide his dissenting note dated nil (Annexure P-4) and the petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 27.04.2005 (Annexure P-5) along with copy of the dissenting note and it was stated that the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that one of the major penalties apart from the recovery of Rs.7,43,567.01 should be imposed upon you. The petitioner submitted reply to the said show cause notice on 27.06.2005 (Annexure P-6), however, without considering the said reply, vide order dated 14.09.2005 (Annexure P-7), the petitioner was awarded the punishment of recovery of Rs.4,39,999.28. The petitioner preferred an appeal dated 03.11.2005 (Annexure P-8) against the said punishment order and the petitioner was called for personal hearing on 20.04.2018, on which date he duly appeared and submitted his brief note to the Appellate Authority (Annexure P-9), and during the interregnum period, the petitioner stood retired on 31.08.2012. The Appellate Authority, vide order dated 30.04.2018 (Annexure P-10), VINAY 2026.07.22 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-15748-2021 -3- partially accepted the appeal of the petitioner and reduced the recovery to 50% i.e. Rs.2,19,999.64 and liberty was granted to the competent authority to recover the remaining 50% amount from the Warehouse Manager, who remained posted during the relevant period. He further submits that thereafter, the Corporation filed a review application dated 21.06.2019 (Annexure P-11) before the Appellate Authority for reviewing the order dated 30.04.2018 (Annexure P-10). Vide letter dated 05.07.2019 (Annexure P-12), the petitioner was called to appear before the Appellate Authority in the review application on 10.07.2019 at 12:00 P.M. and the said letter was addressed by the Presenting Officer on behalf of the Appellate Authority. The petitioner submitted reply/representation in the review application on 10.07.2019 (Annexure P-13) and the Appellate Authority reviewed its order dated 30.04.2018 and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner maintaining the recovery of Rs.4,39,999.28, vide order dated 20.08.2019 (Annexure P-14). Mainly, the said order has been impugned by the petitioner in the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that firstly the Appellate Authority decided the appeal after a period of 13 years and the copy of the order dated 30.04.2018, passed by the Appellate Authority, was not served upon the petitioner and after a period of one year and two months, a review application was filed by the Corporation before the Appellate Authority for reviewing the order dated 30.04.2018. He submits that limitation for filing the review application is six months from the date of passing of the order by the Appellate Authority, however, the review was filed after a period of one year and two months, which could not have been entertained by the Appellate VINAY 2026.07.22 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-15748-2021 -4- Authority as there was no application for condonation of delay in filing the review application. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents could not refute the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Undisputedly, vide punishment order dated 14.09.2005, the petitioner was awarded the punishment of recovery of Rs.4,39,999.28, against which he preferred a statutory appeal. The said appeal came to be decided after an inordinate delay of about 13 years, vide order dated 30.04.2018. Thereafter, a review application dated 21.06.2019 was filed by the Corporation, which came to be adjudicated upon after expiry of the prescribed limitation period of six months as the said review application was filed after a delay of one year and two months without any application seeking condonation of delay therein, and further, the appellate order dated 30.04.2018 was also not communicated to the petitioner prior to initiation of the review proceedings. 6. Thereby, Keeping in view the above procedural irregularities, the matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority to take a fresh decision on the review application of the Corporation after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 6. Disposed of in the above terms. 20.07.2026 (NAMIT KUMAR) Vinay JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VINAY 2026.07.22 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment