Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Exoneration of Retired Employee, Dismisses Warehousing Corporation’s Appeal Over Storage Loss Recovery

Case Name: Haryana State Warehousing Corporation and Others v. Ram Sarup
Date of Judgment: October 14, 2025
Citation: RSA-3397-2023
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sudeépti Sharma

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Haryana State Warehousing Corporation challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below, which had set aside a recovery order imposed on a retired employee for alleged storage loss. Justice Sudeépti Sharma held that the enquiry records clearly established that the storage loss was due to natural causes and not attributable to negligence on the part of the employee. The Court observed that no departmental enquiry was conducted and that the punishment order was issued without appointing an enquiry officer or supplying relevant documents to the delinquent employee. It reaffirmed that findings based on admitted evidence of departmental witnesses could not be disturbed in second appeal unless perversity was demonstrated.

Summary: The respondent, Ram Sarup, was appointed as a Peon in the Haryana State Warehousing Corporation in 1976 and promoted as Godown Keeper in 1992. He retired on September 30, 2013. Post-retirement, he was served with a chargesheet dated February 20, 2014, alleging that a storage loss of 25,66,978 quintals of rice, worth ₹54,856, had occurred at the Shahabad warehouse during his tenure in 2010 due to negligence. A punishment order dated July 31, 2015, imposed recovery of ₹54,856 jointly on him and others, which was later upheld in departmental appeal on July 3, 2018.

The employee challenged the orders before the Civil Court, which decreed the suit in his favour, finding that the enquiry committee’s reports (Ex. P-10 and Ex. P-11) specifically recorded that the loss occurred due to natural reasons and not due to any fault or negligence on the part of the respondent. The District Judge, Kurukshetra, upheld the decree, noting that no enquiry officer was ever appointed and that the employee had retired before the initiation of disciplinary proceedings.

Justice Sudeépti Sharma found that both departmental witnesses, including Rajinder Kumar (DW-1), had admitted under cross-examination that the committee report exonerated the respondent and no regular departmental enquiry was held. The Court held that the appellant’s recovery order was legally unsustainable, as the disciplinary action was procedurally flawed and contrary to the Haryana Civil Services Rules, 1987.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal, affirming the judgments of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shahabad, dated November 18, 2019, and the District Judge, Kurukshetra, dated March 21, 2022. It upheld the decree in favour of the employee, holding that the recovery was unjustified as the loss was natural and not due to negligence.