IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10043 of 2008 Date of Decision: October 27, 2009 Gurtej Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3 to 7, 10 & 13. Mr. V.K. Shukla, Advocate, for respondent No.8. None for respondent Nos.9, 11 and 12. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) In the context of observations made in Order dated 13.8.2009, enquiry report dated 5.10.2009 (Annexure R-1) and letter dated 16.10.2009 (Annexure R-2) have been filed which are taken on record. On 13.8.2009, the following order CWP No.10043 of 2008 [2] was passed:- “Mr. Gurdev Singh Sidhu, Director, Rural Development & Panchayat, Punjab, is present in Court. Mr. Sidhu states that the petitioner was working as Superintendent. He had taken a number of loans to the tune of more than Rs.7 lac. Without re-payment of loan, the petitioner actuated the release of pensionary benefits including the amount that could be with-held to secure the rights of the respondent-State i.e. Death Cum Retirement Gratuity and Leave Encashment. This petition has been filed for release of the provisional pension. In the meantime, the facts came to light and the benefits were with-held. Mr. Sidhu states that 75% of the pension has been released, however, rights of the respondents are required to be secured. Since the petitioner has played a fraud, an enquiry has already been initiated in the entire incident, it would be wholly inappropriate, inequitable and illegal if the benefit is allowed to the petitioner even though facts have come to the notice of the Court. It has been stated by the respondents that the petitioner cannot claim benefit of writ jurisdiction in a case where the petitioner has not been fair. Adjourned to 27.10.2009. The respondents would inform the Court about the result of enquiry initiated in the incident, on the adjourned date, by way of filing an affidavit and the enquiry report. Mr. Gurdev Singh Sidhu, Director, Rural Development & Panchayat, Punjab, shall not be required to appear on the next date of hearing. It is made clear that the petitioner would be actively associated in the enquiry and shall be given full opportunity of hearing. The petitioner would apprise the Department of the details of loans taken and amounts re- paid, as per his case. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall give complete assistance and shall not delay the enquiry proceedings. Petitioner, Gurtej Singh, who is present in person, shall appear in the office of the Director, Rural Development & Panchayat, Punjab, on 17.8.2009 at 10.00 AM.” As per enquiry report dated 5.10.2009 (Annexure R-1), the petitioner was associated with the enquiry. It has been concluded that the petitioner himself admitted that some amount was outstanding against him. Sum CWP No.10043 of 2008 [3] of money recovered/recoverable from the petitioner has been detailed in different heads. It has further been recorded in the report that the petitioner himself is responsible for delay in finalising his case for release of retiral benefits. It was the petitioner who had not cleared the outstanding advances/loans before retirement. The petitioner had been serving as Superintendent in different Panchayat Samitis for 28 years and therefore, was in know of all the procedures. It is further reflected that departmental action has been proposed to be initiated against the erring officers/ officials. Letter/Notice, Annexure R-2, has been served on the petitioner indicating the outstanding amount payable by the petitioner. Notice requires the petitioner to pay certain amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the enquiry report is not based on facts. The petitioner, legally, is not bound to pay the amount ordered to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner infact was not heard during enquiry proceedings. It has been asserted that the respondents cannot with-hold benefits on account of a loan taken from Bank. Considering the totality of facts and CWP No.10043 of 2008 [4] circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file objections to the enquiry report. The objections be filed within a period of three weeks from today. On filing of objections, the respondents would be required to decide the objections within a period of four months of receipt of objections vide a speaking and reasoned order. The claim of the petitioner for release of remaining retiral benefits would be decided thereafter. (AJAI LAMBA) October 27, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? CWP No.10043 of 2008 [5] Learned counsel for the respondent- State contends that on payment of the amount due towards the petitioner, the matter regarding retiral benefits would be finalised within two months of the deposit. In view of the findings recorded in the enquiry report; notice that has already been served on the petitioner requiring him to deposit the outstanding amount and the statement made by learned counsel for the respondent-State that on the deposit having been made by the petitioner, his case of release of retiral benefits would be finalised within two months of the deposit, this petition is disposed of. It is however made clear that in case the petitioner fails to make the deposit, this order shall not stand in the way of the respondents to initiate action against the petitioner.