Kasturi Lal Chhabra vs State Of Haryana And Others

CWP-11693-2025 (O&M) 1 of 15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
212 CWP-11693-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 02.11.2026
Kasturi Lal Chhabra ...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Fateh Saini, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Parveen Mehta, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Harmeet Singh Oberoi, Advocate
for respondent No.5
*
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of the
following writs:-
i. A writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated
20.12.2018 (Annexure P-5) whereby respondent no. 3 has ordered the
recovery of Rs. 5,08,010/- for alleged "less storage gain" in wheat due to
absorption of moisture and further, the order of recovery has been
modified from Rs. 5,08,010/- to Rs. 3,96,409/- in appeal vide impugned
order dated 22.07.2024 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No. 2 which
is prima facia cryptic, wrong, illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unfair, null, void ab-
initio and against the fundamental rights of the petitioner;
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.03 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-11693-2025 (O&M) 2 of 15
ii. A writ in the nature of Mandamus for directing the respondents to
sanction full pension and full gratuity and further respondents are
directed to pay arrears of pension and gratuity alongwith interest @ 12%
after revising the same till the date of actual payment is made as such
recovery orders are non-est in eyes of law, in the larger interest of justice.
2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that facts in chronological sequence are as follows: -
04.08.1981: Petitioner joined as Clerk-cum-Store Keeper in Haryana State
Small Industries and Export Corporation on 04.08.1981.
16.04.1986: Thereafter, petitioner was selected through S.S. Board; and
joined the respondent-Food and Supplies Department on 16.04.1986.
14.01.2015: Shortly before his retirement on 31.05.2016, petitioner was
charged under Rule 8 of HCS (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 by
alleging "less storage gain" in wheat due to absorption of moisture, vide
Memorandum dated 14.01.2015 (Annexure P-1).
31.05.2016 : Petitioner had retired as Assistant Food and Supplies Officer
from Food and Supplies Department, Haryana on 31.05.2016.
20.12.2018: Vide impugned order dated 20.12.2018 (Annexure P-5),
respondent No.3 has ordered the recovery of Rs.5,08,010/- for alleged
“less storage gain” in wheat due to absorption of moisture.
22.07.2024: Against the order dated 20.12.2018, petitioner had filed an
Appeal before the respondent No.2. Vide impugned order dated
22.07.2024 (Annexure P-7), the order dated 20.12.2018 has been modified
to the extent for recovery of Rs.3,96,409/- instead of Rs.5,08,010/-.
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.03 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-11693-2025 (O&M) 3 of 15
21.04.2025: Hence, present Writ Petition has been filed on 21.04.2025.
3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated
04.06.2013 (Annexure P-12), the Directorate Food and Supplies
Department has dropped the charge against another similarly situated
employee at Dhand Centre (District Kaithal) on the ground that less
storage gain/moisture content in wheat is due to less rainfall.
4. In similar circumstances in case of another employee,
namely, Sh. Lajja Ram, an Appeal filed by Lajja Ram has been allowed by
respondent No.1 vide order dated 17.10.2025. A copy of which is handed
over in Court today and is taken on record. Whereas similar Appeal of the
petitioner has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 22.07.2024
(Annexure P-7).
5. Moreover, though, the aforementioned question of law
stands decided by this Court in several writ petitions filed in earlier point
of time, which has already attained finality but different
corporations/departments, such as respondents herein, kept on issuing
the charge sheets to the employees without there being any provisions of
law in their rules governing the services holding the employee liable for
recovery on account of less gain of items stored under their supervision.
6. It is further submitted that in view of above background of
case, it is clear that the employee cannot be made responsible or liable for
less storage gain in wheat which is if any, due to natural reasons like less
rainfall/moisture content etc.; and therefore, imposition of recovery upon
the employees is prima facia cryptic, wrong, illegal, arbitrary, unjust,
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.03 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-11693-2025 (O&M) 4 of 15
unfair, null, void ab-initio and against the fundamental rights of the
petitioner and neither maintainable nor sustainable in eyes of law,
deserves to be quashed, in the larger interest of justice.
7. It is accordingly prayed that the present Writ Petition be
allowed; and following prayers be accepted: -
“I. A writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the
impugned order dated 20.12.2018 (Annexure P-5) whereby
respondent no. 3 has ordered the recovery of Rs. 5,08,010/-
for alleged "less storage gain" in wheat due to absorption of
moisture and further, the order of recovery has been modified
from Rs. 5,08,010/- to Rs. 3,96,409/- in appeal vide impugned
order dated 22.07.2024 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent
No. 2 which is prima facia cryptic, wrong, illegal, arbitrary,
unjust, unfair, null, void ab-initio and against the
fundamental rights of the petitioner and neither
maintainable nor sustainable in eyes of law, deserve to be
quashed, in the larger interest of Justice.
II. A writ in the nature of Mandamus for directing the
respondents to sanction full pension and full gratuity and
further respondents are directed to pay arrears of pension
and gratuity alongwith interest @ 12% after revising the
same till the date of actual payment is made as such recovery
orders are non-est in eyes of law, in the larger interest of
justice.”
8. Per contra, learned State Counsel has opposed submissions
of the petitioner by submitting that specific allegations had been made
against the petitioner to the effect that “less storage gain” was detected in
wheat stocks during the crop years 2012-13 and 2013-14 at Mullana
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.03 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-11693-2025 (O&M) 5 of 15
Centre, District Ambala, while he was posted there as Sub-Inspector, Food
& Supplies. The said allegations were specifically quantified to the effect
that there was shortage of 956.77 quintals in crop year 2012-13, and
shortage of 256.28 quintals in crop year 2013-14. Based on the prevailing
rates of Rs.1534.52 and Rs. 1612.83 per quintal respectively, the total loss
was calculated to be Rs.18,81,519/-, of which 27% was apportioned to the
petitioner in terms of standing policy, amounting to Rs.5,08,010/-.
9. Ld. State Counsel further submits that the petitioner was duly
afforded a fair and adequate opportunity to inspect all relevant records
and documents pertaining to the alleged shortage, in accordance with the
principles of natural justice and Rule 8 of the Haryana Civil Services
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987. That upon receipt of the
memorandum dated 14.01.2015 (Annexure R-2), the petitioner was
specifically invited to inspect the official records maintained at the office
of the District Food and Supplies Controller, Ambala, and was advised to
submit his written representation within the stipulated time. Thereafter, a
detailed departmental inquiry was conducted by the respondents, during
which the facts and figures concerning wheat stock shortages for crop
years 2012-13 and 2013-14 were objectively examined. Upon conclusion
of the inquiry, the competent authority passed a reasoned order dated
20.12.2018, imposing recovery of Rs.5,08,010/- upon the petitioner,
representing his proportionate share of liability at the rate of 27% of the
total calculated loss, as per the standing departmental circulars and
instructions dated 19.01.1989.
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.03 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-11693-2025 (O&M) 6 of 15
10. Furthermore, the petitioner has availed the statutory remedy
of appeal before the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Food, Civil
Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Government of Haryana. The appeal was
duly considered and adjudicated upon in detail; and Vide order dated
22.07.2024, the appellate authority, after re-evaluating the facts, partially
accepted the petitioner's appeal and extended relief by waiving the
recovery amount of Rs.1,11,601/-pertaining to the year 2013-14. Thus,
the total recovery was revised to Rs.3,96,409/- This clearly reflects that
the respondents acted with judicious application of mind and equity,
considering both the administrative responsibility and factual record, and
there was neither arbitrariness nor procedural infirmity in the action taken
against the petitioner. Moreover, the circulars and letters laying down the
law for recovery in such cases is still valid and not revoked or repealed.
11. It is further submitted by ld. State Counsel that the
withholding of the petitioner's pension benefits is legally justified and
arises from the subsisting recovery proceedings initiated against him
following the detection of shortages in government foodgrain stocks
during his tenure. It is argued that it is a well-established principle of
service jurisprudence that where any financial liability is found against a
retired government servant, particularly in respect of loss to public
property or revenue during his service, the competent authority is well
within its rights to withhold or defer part or full pensions entitlements
until such liability is discharged. In the present case, the recovery amount
of Rs. 3,96,409/- has been adjudicated upon after a detailed inquiry and
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.03 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-11693-2025 (O&M) 7 of 15
subsequent appeal. Until such time as this recoverable amount is either
paid by the petitioner or otherwise adjusted, the department is under no
legal obligation to release full pension or gratuity benefits. It is further
stated that the Pensionary entitlements are not an unconditional or
automatic right where a government servant is found responsible for
causing pecuniary loss to the State but rather, the same are subject to
verification of conduct and satisfaction of dues payable to the
government. Thus, the withholding of full pension is neither punitive nor
arbitrary, but a consequence of the outstanding recovery established
through proper departmental procedure. The department has acted well
within its lawful authority in withholding the balance pensionary benefits
to the extent necessary to secure the recovery amount. The petitioner
shall be entitled to such benefits only upon clearance of the dues
outstanding against him.
12. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Writ
Petition.
13. No other argument has been raised on behalf of learned
counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case
file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions of the respondent-State.
14. The aforesaid arguments raised by ld. State Counsel are
without merit and untenable as, in an identical case bearing CWP-11041-
2001 titled as Haryana Food and Supplies Field Staff Association and
others vs. State of Haryana and others, Neutral Citation No.
2015:PHHC:005193, similar contentions raised on behalf of the
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.03 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-11693-2025 (O&M) 8 of 15
respondent State have been rejected by a coordinate Bench vide
judgment dated 20.01.2015 (Annexure P-8). LPA-1272-2015 filed by the
respondent-State against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed by
Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.09.2015 passed in State
of Haryana and others vs. Haryana Food & Supplies Field Staff
Association and others, Neutral Citation No. 2015: PHHC: 076106-DB
(Annexure P-9). Even an SLP bearing No. SLP(C)-3699-2016 titled as State
of Haryana and others vs. Haryana Food And Supplies Field Staff
Association and others, against the aforesaid order dated 10.9.2015, was
dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 14.03.2016
(Annexure P-10).
15. Reference is also made to a judgment passed by a
Predecessor Bench of this Court in similar matter i.e. CWP-4667-2016
titled as Devat Ram vs. Managing Director, the Haryana State Federation
of Consumer’s Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd. and another , which
was allowed vide order dated 06.02.2019 as follows:-
“Keeping in view that these judgments have attained finality
and instructions dated 27.07.1999 cannot be made basis for
issuing chargesheet (Annexure P-1) to the petitioner as has
been done in the present case, the writ petition deserves to
be allowed and the chargesheet dated 03.08.2015 (Annexure
P-1), inquiry report dated 07.12.2015 (Annexure R-3), show
cause notice dated 21.03.2016 (Annexure R-4) and the
punishment order dated 12.09.2016 (Annexure R-5) are being
quashed. The respondents are directed to release the retiral
benefits of the petitioner alongwith 6% interest per annum
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.03 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-11693-2025 (O&M) 9 of 15
from the date they due to the petitioner within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order.”
16. Despite the above said position in law, respondent-State had
sought to make other persons similarly situated as the present petitioner
accountable for “less storage gain” vide order dated 05.10.2015; which
was challenged before this Court by way of filing CWP-26704-2015 titled
as Ram Sawrup vs. State of Haryana and others and CWP-6960-2016
titled as Ram Dhari vs. State of Haryana and others . Vide order dated
10.07.2019 (Annexure P-13), both the said CWPs have been allowed; and
the impugned action of the respondent-State was rebuffed/set aside by
this Court while taking note of the aforementioned judgments passed in
CWP-11041-2001 titled as Haryana Food and Supplies Field Staff
Association and others vs. State of Haryana and others, Neutral Citation
No. 2015:PHHC:005193 (Annexure P-8); LPA-1272-2015 titled as State of
Haryana and others vs. Haryana Food & Supplies Field Staff Association
and others, Neutral Citation No. 2015: PHHC: 076106-DB (Annexure P-9);
and SLP(C)-3699-2016 titled as State of Haryana and others vs. Haryana
Food And Supplies Field Staff Association and others which was
dismissed vide order dated 14.03.2016 (Annexure P-10). The relevant
observations recorded in the order dated 10.07.2019 passed in CWP-
26704-2015 read as under: -
“Though, the aforementioned question of law decided
by this Court has already attained finality but different
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.03 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-11693-2025 (O&M) 10 of 15
corporations, such as respondent-Corporation herein, kept on
issuing the charge sheets to the employees without there
being any provisions of law in their rules governing the
services holding the employee liable for recovery on account
of less gain of items stored under their supervision. One
Devat Ram, who was also working in the same Federation, as
the petitioner herein, was issued charge sheet for showing
less gain in wheat in the stock which was stored under his
supervision. He was also imposed punishment, as done in the
case of the petitioner. He had filed CWP-4667 of 2016,
challenging the charge sheet as well as order of punishment.
The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 6.2.2019
keeping in view the settled principle of law that in absence of
any rules fixing the parameters for showing moisture content,
no punishment can be imposed upon the employees. While
deciding the said writ petition, the co-ordinate Bench has
taken into account the decision rendered by this Court in
CWP-11041 of 2001 and CWP-3239 of 1993 as well as the
judgment passed in CWP-12950 of 1999. The relevant order
passed in the case of Dewat Ram Vs. Managing Director, The
Haryana State Federation of Consumer's Cooperative
Wholesale Stores Ltd. and another is as under:-
"The petitioner is seeking quashing of the
chargesheet dated 03.08.2015 (Annexure P-1) issued
by respondent No. 1 containing allegation of causing
loss as having failed to gain weight in stock and has
given less gain in delivery to FCI ordering recovery of
70%.
The petitioner had been in the service of
respondent-Confed from 14.03.1980 and reitred as a
Clerk on 30.11.2013 on attaining the age of
superannuation. While working as Clerk in Confed, he
was to perform duties of Incharge of Chander Kalan
Mandi (Fatehabad) during the season 2011-12 and
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.03 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-11693-2025 (O&M) 11 of 15
during this period of Rabi season 2011, various crops of
wheat were stocks and deliveries were made to various
agencies including Food Corporation of India (FCI).
During this season, total purchase of 115432 bags of
50 Kg each of wheat i.e. total 57716 quintal was made.
The chargesheet (Annexure P-1) was issued to the
petitioner on 03.08.2015. A perusal of the chargesheet
shows that the charge against the petitioner was that
he had given less gain in the delivery of wheat stock to
the FCI during the Rabi season 2011-2012 and this was
against the norms fixed vide head office letter No.
5977-92 dated 27.07.1999. This chargesheet further
reflects that decision had been taken by the Board of
Administrator to effect recovery of less gain from the
concerned employee and in this regard instructions
have been issued vide letter dated 14.03.2003.
After issuing statements alongwith chargesheet,
all the allegations in details were given to the
petitioner and after holding the enquiry, punishment
order dated 12.09.2016 (Annexure R-5) was passed
whereby it was ordered that recovery of Rs.1,31,195/-
will be made from the retiral dues of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred
to a decision given by this Court in CWP-11041-2001
Haryana Food and Supplies Field Staff Association and
others V/s. State of Haryana and others, decided on
20.01.2015 (Annexure P-13) whereby the demand
notices issued to the petitioner on account of less gain,
had been quashed. While allowing the said writ
petition, reference was also made to a decision given in
CWP-3239-1993 in Punjab Warehousing Fields
Employees Union, Patiala and others, decided on
20.06.1994, whereby it was held that employees
posted in storage houses cannot be made accountable
for maintaining particular moisture content and the
demand notices issued against the employees were not
justified. This judgment was again followed in CWP-
12950-1990, disposed of on 14.09.2000 which is
reproduced as under:-
"Counsel for the petitioners and respondents 4and 5
are agreed that this case is squarely covered by the
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.03 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-11693-2025 (O&M) 12 of 15
decision of this Court in civil writ petition No. 3239 of
1993 dated 20.06.1994. Therefore, this petition has to
be disposed of in terms of the order passed in the
above said civil writ petition, a copy of which has
been produced as Annexure P-22. But the learned
counsel for the 5th respondent states that certain
amendments have been proposed in the regulation,
but these amendments have not so far been issued
and have not come into force. Therefore, we dispose
of this writ petition in terms of the order in CWP 3239
of 1993 dated 20.06.1994 subject to the right of the
5th respondent to take action in accordance with law,
if and when the regulation is amended. Consequently,
annexures P-3 and P-16 are quashed."
The judgment of CWP-12950-1999 has also been
followed by this Court in CWP-7284-2008 Ravel Singh
V/s. State of Haryana and others, decided on
16.04.2009 (Annexure P-14).
Learned counsel for the respondents is not able
to show that the judgments of CWP-11041-2001
(Annexure P-13) and CWP-7284-2008 (Annexure P-14)
were ever modified/set aside in subsequent appeals.
Keeping in view that these judgments have
attained finality and instructions dated 27.07.1999
cannot be made basis for issuing chargesheet
(Annexure P-1) to the petitioner as has been done in
the present case, the writ petition deserves to be
allowed and the chargesheet dated 03.08.2015
(Annexure P-1), inquiry report dated 07.12.2015
(Annexure R-3), show cause notice dated 21.03.2016
(Annexure R-4) and the punishment order dated
12.09.2016 (Annexure R-5) are being quashed. The
respondents are directed to release the retiral benefits
of the petitioner alongwith 6% interest per annum
from the date they due to the petitioner within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order."
Learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents
is unable to dispute the arguments, raised by the counsel for
the petitioner that the question of law that no punishment
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.03 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-11693-2025 (O&M) 13 of 15
can be imposed upon the employees without there being any
norms fixed for showing any less gain in the moisture content
is already settled and, therefore, the order of punishment
which has been passed against the petitioner on 05.10.2015
is contrary to the settled principle of law. Learned Advocate
General, Haryana very fairly submits that the petitioner is
also covered by the said decision, which relates to same
respondent-Federation.
Keeping in view the above, both the writ petitions are
allowed.
Impugned order of punishment dated 05.10.2015 in
CWP-26704 of 2015 and impugned order dated 16.10.2015 in
CWP-6960 of 2016 are set aside.
Counsel for the petitioner states that keeping view the
said punishment, retiral benefits of the petitioner have been
withheld. Counsel for the respondents states that keeping in
view the decision rendered by this Court today, appropriate
decision will be taken by the respondents for the release of
pensionary benefits of the petitioner within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order
and the arrears, for which the petitioner is found to be
entitled, will be released to him within a period of one month
thereafter. Counsel for the petitioner states that in Dewat
Ram's case (supra) the retiral benefits were directed to be
released along with 6% interest, which fact is again admitted
by the learned Senior counsel for the respondents. Therefore,
the petitioner will also be entitled for interest @ 6% per
annum on the retiral benefits as well, from the date it
became due, till they are actually released by the
respondents.
Both the petitions stand allowed in above terms.”
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.03 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-11693-2025 (O&M) 14 of 15
17. It is also not disputed by ld. Counsel for the respondent-State
that in identical circumstances, Appeal filed by similarly situated
employee, namely, Sh. Lajja Ram, Inspector, who, while posted at Mulana
Centre, O/o DFSC Ambala during the calendar year 2012-13 and 2013-14
was found to have committed certain irregularities. However, vide order
dated 17.10.2025 passed by the Principal Secretary to Govt. Haryana,
Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Appeal filed by
said Lajja Ram has been accepted and order of recovery dated 20.12.2018
for an amount of Rs.8,09,053/- against Sh. Lajja Ram has been set aside
and stands cancelled. However, vide order dated 20.12.2018 (Annexure P-
5), an amount of Rs.5,08,010/- has been ordered to be recovered against
the petitioner in respect of the shortages and all retiral benefits of the
petitioner have been withheld. No reasons are given as to why petitioner
was treated differently.
18. Keeping in view the above noted legal position, the present
Writ Petition stands allowed; and the impugned orders of punishment
dated 20.12.2018 (Annexure P-5) and 22.07.2024 (Annexure P-7), are set
aside. It is further directed that pensionary benefits of the petitioner
along with any arrears, be released to the petitioner as per his
entitlement, within 8 weeks of receipt of certified copy of this order. In
case needful is not done within the stipulated time, petitioner shall be
entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from date of
entitlement.
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.03 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-11693-2025 (O&M) 15 of 15
19. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
02.11.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.03 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document