← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/28753/2025disposed of

Ajay Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Others

2025-09-25Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-28753-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.09.2025 Ajay Kumar ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:

Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1.

Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing respondent No.3 to pass the final order on the pending statutory appeal dated 12.11.2024 (Annexure P-4) within a suitable time period after the said appeal was filed against the order of respondent No.2 passed on 26.09.2024 (Annexure P-3) vide which without conducting any detailed enquiry or appointing any enquiry officer or without scrutinizing the documents an order has been passed against the petitioner by respondent No.2 to impose the recovery of Rs.4,05,180/- on account of loss of interest due to delay in preferring the sales bills to FCI by the petitioner. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing respondent No.2 not to deduct the amount of

recovery from the salary of the petitioner during the pendency of the statutory appeal.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments passed by this Court in CWP-845-2019 titled as Jaswinder Singh and another vs. The Punjab State Cooperative Supply and another, CWP-3443-2019 titled as Raman Kant vs. The Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. and another; CWP-5050-2020 titled as Jasvir Singh and another vs. The Punjab State Supply Marketing Federation Ltd and another; and CWP-98452020 titled as Tirath Ram vs. Board of Directors. He submits that at this stage, he will be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondent No.3 to decide the statutory appeal dated 12.11.2024 (Annexure P-4) by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner. He further prays that till final disposal of the aforesaid statutory appeal, recovery from the salary of the petitioner may be stayed.

3.

Notice of motion.

4.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Addl. A.G., Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 while Mr. Prince Singh, Advocate, appears on advance notice and submits that they have no objection, in case a direction is issued to respondent No.3 to hear and decide the statutory appeal dated 12.11.2024 (Annexure P-4), in a time bound manner. 5.

In view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, without commenting upon merits of the case, present petition is disposed of and respondent No.3 is directed to hear and

decide the statutory appeal dated 12.11.2024 (Annexure P-4) in a time bound manner and pass a speaking order, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 6.

Till decision of the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner, recovery from the salary of the petitioner shall remain stayed. 7.

Needless to say, if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same be granted to him forthwith by respondent No.3. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 25.09.2025 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No