IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2033 of 2005 Date of Decision:- 15.1.2008 Parampal Singh ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate vs. R.C.S.Haryana & others ....Respondent(s) through Mr.R.S.Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for No.1. Mr.Dinesh Kumar Jangra, Advocate for Nos.2 and 3. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the 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? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This petition is directed against the orders dated 30.1.2003 and 8.2.2005 passed by the learned trial Court as well as by the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal whereby an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC moved by the petitioner has been dismissed. The petitioner was working as a Refrigerator operator at the HAFED Cold Storage, Karnal. He was served with a chargesheet alleging, inter alia, that due to his failure to maintain the required temperature, loss to the tune of Rs.30,31,302.63 paise was caused to the HAFED. The petitioner was held guilty and accordingly, a recovery of Rs.6,06,260.57 paise has been fastened upon him i.e. 20% of the total loss. C.R.No.2033 of 2005 -2- Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed a civil suit for setting aside the above-stated order. In the said civil suit, the petitioner has also moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC so as to restrain the respondents from effecting recovery of the aforementioned amount. The said application, however, has been dismissed by the learned trial Court and the said order has been affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court. This is how the petitioner has approached this Court. It may be noticed here that the penalty amount is sought to be recovered from the petitioner by deducting one-third of his monthly emoluments as he is still serving in the HAFED. Applying the tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury, the Courts below have rightly observed that neither it is a case of causing irreparable loss to the petitioner nor the balance of convenience lies in his favour more so when in the departmental enquiry he has been held responsible for causing the loss in question. In this view of the matter, no interference in the impugned order is called for except to observe that in case the petitioner succeeds in the civil suit, the respondents would obviously be obligated to refund the entire deducted amount along with suitable interest as may be determined by the learned Civil Court. Dismissed. January 15, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE