CWP No. 17427 of 2006 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17427 of 2006 Date of Decision: 25.2.2008 Kewal Krishan Jaiswal .......Petitioner Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another ......Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: Shri Jagbir Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri B.S. Rana, Advocate, for the respondents. 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? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 28.9.2005 (Annexure P.5) whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of retiral benefits to the tune of Rs.5,55,074/- has been declined. The petitioner has retired on 17.2.2004 after attaining the age of superannuation. However, the retiral benefits to the tune of Rs.5,55,074/- were not paid to the petitioner on account of shortage of oil and missing parts of transformers. Such amount has been withheld by the respondents without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner. In the reply, it was pointed out that there was no need to issue any show cause notice/charge sheet to the petitioner as has admitted the shortages on shortage reports issued in respect of the Transformers Repair Workshop during the course of investigation when the damaged CWP No. 17427 of 2006 (2) transformers were returned. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through record, we are of the opinion that the action of the respondents in withholding the aforesaid amount, without issuing any show cause notice or any proceedings, so as to impose a minor penalty of recovery for the loss suffered by the respondents, is not sustainable in law. The withholding of the amount from the retiral benefits in fact amounts to minor penalty and such minor penalty cannot be imposed without complying with the provisions of natural justice and in terms of the disciplinary Rules. Since opportunity of hearing has not been granted and still the amount was withheld, therefore, the action of the respondents cannot be sustained. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.9.2005 (Annexure P.5) is quashed. The respondents are directed to release the withheld amount within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to finalise the disciplinary proceedings, if any, against the petitioner, in accordance with law within the aforesaid period of three months. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE 25-02-2008 ds