-1- Civil Writ Petition No.3926 of 2007. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: April 10, 2008. Baldev Raj ... Petitioner VERSUS Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam through its Superintending Engineer, Karnal and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated February 24, 2006 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Superintending Engineer (O.P) Circle, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Karnail (for short -2- Civil Writ Petition No.3926 of 2007. `the Nigam') whereby two per cent cut in the pension of the petitioner has been ordered. The petitioner retired as Assistant Foreman from the Nigam on May 30, 2005. As per report of the Vigilance Inquiry dated April 28, 2005, the petitioner was found involved in the case of theft of energy being area incharge. The said theft had been detected on July 21, 2004 i.e before the retirement of the petitioner. After receipt of the report of the Departmental Vigilance Inquiry on April 28, 2005, for taking disciplinary action against the petitioner, show cause notice (Annexure P-1) was issued to him on May 30, 2005. The petitioner submitted reply dated June 11, 2005 (Annexure P-2). Finding the reply unsatisfactory, the competent authority ordered recovery of 2% pension of the petitioner in order to make good the loss of Rs.60,000/- suffered by the Nigam. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the contents of the writ petition and the reply filed by the Nigam, we do not find any reason which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was granted opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. No fault can be found with the reasoning given by the competent authority in the impugned order for imposing the penalty. Dismissed. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE JUDGE April 10, 2008. ak