IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.4023 of 2010 Date of Decision:29.9.2011 I.S. Dahiya .... Petitioner Versus Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited and others.... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. J.K. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the respondents. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (Oral) The prayer in the present petition is two fold. The first prayer is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned Charge Sheet dated 23.3.2000 (P-4) and order dated 17.12.2009 (P-12) on the ground the same are illegal and contrary to the provisions of Rule 2.2. (b) of Civil Services Rules Vol.(II). The second prayer is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to release the amount of gratuity, leave encashment, pay for the month of May and other entitled benefit together with interest @ 18% per annum. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length. The petitioner had earlier filed CWP No.869 of 2009. In the said writ petition, similar prayer for quashing of the Charge Sheet dated 23.3.2000 as impugned in the present petition was made. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on C.W.P No.4023 of 2010 -2- 6.10.2009 with the following directions: “Counsel for the respondent has informed that now the Enquiry Officer has submitted the report and on the said report a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner has already given a reply. In reply to the said show cause notice, the petitioner has also taken the plea that intimation of departmental enquiry was barred by limitation in view of the aforesaid provisions. Counsel further states that the said point raised by the petitioner in the show cause notice will also be considered by the Disciplinary Authority while taking a decision on the enquiry report, counsel states that the final decision will be taken within a period of two months. In view of the aforesaid statement made by the counsel for the respondents, counsel for the petitioner does not want to press this petition and the same is dismissed as such.” It is an admitted position that the departmental inquiry has since been completed and the Disciplinary Authority has also passed order dated 17.12.2009 (P-12) which is impugned in the present petition. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner also filed an appeal against the said order before the Appellate Authority. The said appeal has still not been decided and during the pendency of the same, the present petitioner has also filed the present petition without waiting for the out come of the appeal. The reply has been filed. Alongwith the reply, the order of C.W.P No.4023 of 2010 -3- the Appellate Authority deciding the appeal (R-1) has been placed on record. The petitioner has not challenged the said order. In view of the above facts, the writ petition with respect to this prayer is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition challenging the order dated 3.8.2010 (R-1) passed by the Appellate Authority With respect to the second prayer, affidavit of Managing Director, HVPNL, dated 17.5.2011 has been filed stating therein that an amount of Rs.12,670/- on account of leave encashment for 190 days has been sanctioned; an amount of Rs.27,334/- on account of last pay and an amount of Rs.3,10,547/- on account of gratuity have been released to the petitioner vide three separate cheques dated 17.5.2011. It is further submitted that only an amount of Rs.123479.54/- has been inflicted upon the petitioner on account of various recoveries due towards him. The said amount includes Rs.54,957.54/- towards the punishment/penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority which was further upheld by the Appellate Authority. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition at this stage qua the second prayer with the following directions: a) Since the substantial amount due to the petitioner has since been paid, the second prayer made by him stands redressed except for the balance amount. b) Since out of the total amount of Rs.123479.54/- inflicted upon the petitioner on account of various recoveries due towards him, Rs.54,957.54/- is part of the punishment/penalty, the same shall C.W.P No.4023 of 2010 -4- be subject matter of the decision of this Court in case the petitioner files the writ petition challenging the orders of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority afresh. c) With respect to the balance amount i.e. Rs. 68522/- and the interest on delay, if any, towards amount paid, the petitioner shall file representation claiming the said amount which shall be decided by the appropriate Authority after hearing the petitioner. In case, the petitioner is found entitled to the said amount, the same shall be released to the petitioner forthwith alongwith interest. However, in case the petitioner is not found entitled for the said amount, the respondent-Authority shall pass a speaking order. 29.9.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE