P&H HC Quashes Retired Food Officer’s ₹3.96 Lakh Wheat Recovery Over Missing Moisture-Gain Rules, Orders Pension Release.

The petitioner, a retired Assistant Food and Supplies Officer, was charged under Rule 8 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987, over alleged wheat-stock “less storage gain” during crop years 2012–13 and 2013–14.

By order dated 20.12.2018, the department imposed recovery of ₹5,08,010; on appeal, the amount was reduced to ₹3,96,409 by order dated 22.07.2024.

The petitioner challenged both orders and sought release of his pensionary benefits, which had been withheld.

He relied on earlier decisions concerning recovery for less storage gain and on the fact that a similarly situated employee, Lajja Ram, had obtained cancellation of his recovery order.

The Court relied on the settled principle in Haryana Food and Supplies Field Staff Association v. State of Haryana, CWP-11041-2001, affirmed in LPA-1272-2015 and followed by the Supreme Court’s dismissal of SLP(C)-3699-2016, that employees cannot be held liable for less storage gain or moisture variation without applicable rules or norms fixing the relevant standards.

It also relied on Devat Ram v. Managing Director, Haryana State Federation of Consumers’ Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd., CWP-4667-2016, and Ram Sawrup v. State of Haryana and Ram Dhari v. State of Haryana, which applied that principle to quash disciplinary action and recovery based on departmental instructions that did not have the force of such rules.

The governing principle was that departmental instructions alone could not support recovery for less storage gain where no applicable rules prescribed the required parameters.

The Court considered the State’s reliance on the inquiry, the alleged quantified shortage, and departmental circulars, but held those submissions untenable in light of the final and consistently followed precedents concerning recovery for less storage gain.

The State did not establish that applicable rules prescribed standards making the petitioner responsible for the alleged moisture-related variation.

The Court also noted that the recovery against Lajja Ram, who was similarly situated, had been cancelled, while no reason was given for treating the petitioner differently.

It therefore found the impugned recovery orders unsustainable and the consequential withholding of pensionary benefits unjustified.

It directed the respondents to release the petitioner’s pensionary benefits and any arrears due within eight weeks of receiving a certified copy of the judgment; if they failed to do so within that period, interest at 12% per annum would be payable from the date the benefits became due.