IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 1404 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 3, 2011 Gajraj Singh Yadav …Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against order dated 25.3.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court holding that adequate opportunity of hearing was granted to the appellant in the departmental inquiry held against him, which commenced before he was compulsorily retired and continued later for the purposes of imposition of cut in pension under Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II (as applicable to Haryana) [for brevity, ‘CSR’). This was the only argument raised and rejected by the learned Single Judge, as is evident from the one para order, which reads thus: L.P.A. No. 1404 of 2010 (O&M) “ The petitioner has challenged the order of imposing 5% cut in his pension on the ground that he was not given a chance to inspect the record which he had demanded so as to be able to file a reply. However, from the written statement it has been brought out that in response to the letter of the petitioner dated 3.8.89 the petitioner was sent a telegram dated 14.9.89 requiring him to inspect the record. However, neither the petitioner inspected the record nor he filed any reply. In this view of the matter I find that the allegation that the principles of natural justice were flouted by the respondents is not made out. Consequently this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.” 2. Facts in brief may first be noticed. The petitioner- appellant was working on the post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer and he was charge-sheeted under Rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 (for brevity, ‘Punishment & Appeal Rules’) on 19.2.1987. Despite reminder given to him he preferred not to file any reply to the charge sheet. An inquiry was conducted through special Audit from the Accounts Officer, Development Department, Haryana. During audit it was found that on account of his negligence during the Cattle Fair, the State Government suffered a loss of ` 1.50 lacs. The petitioner-appellant was compulsorily retired from service on attaining the age of 55 years w.e.f. 22.2.1988. 3. After inquiry it was decided to impose 5% cut in his pension along with recovery of an amount of ` 731.50 paise and in 2 L.P.A. No. 1404 of 2010 (O&M) that regard he was served a show cause notice under Rule 2.2 (b) of the CSR. While issuing show cause notice on 16.8.1989 (P-1), it was specifically mentioned that if for the purposes of preparing the representation he wanted to have access of the relevant office record then he is permitted to inspect the same in the office of the Cattle Fair Officer, Karnal and such documents would be shown to him which were available with the department or which are strictly relevant to the case. The petitioner-appellant is alleged to have sent a request on 3.8.1989 for inspection of record which was duly replied by the respondent department by sending a telegram dated 14.9.1989, granting him permission to inspect the record. However, he did not inspect the record and an order was passed on 4.10.1989 (P-5) imposing 5% cut in pension. 4. When we confronted Mr. Arun Yadav with the aforesaid factual sequence of events and the factum that adequate opportunity of hearing was given at the time when charge sheet was issued, learned counsel was not able to substantiate anything which may persuade us to take a view other than the one taken by the learned Single Judge. It has already come on record that the petitioner-appellant did not enter reply to the charge sheet nor he availed any other opportunity. The petitioner-appellant was compulsorily retired from service on attaining the age of 55 years w.e.f. 22.2.1988 and disciplinary proceedings were continued for the purposes of Rule 2.2(b) of the CSR, which provide for imposition of cut in pension in respect of those employees who have retired during pendency of the inquiry proceedings. It has been established that the petitioner-appellant caused loss to the public exchequer during the Cattle Fair and cut in pension has been imposed after 3 L.P.A. No. 1404 of 2010 (O&M) following due process of law as contemplated by the Punishment and Appeal Rules. Accordingly, we do not find any ground to admit the appeal. The appeal is wholly without merit. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) February 3, 2011 JUDGE PKapoor 4