C.W.P. No. 19966 of 2010 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 19966 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 25.07.2011 Nitya Nand ..........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. P.S. Thiara, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing of impugned order dated 5.4.2010 vide which the respondents have ordered for effecting recovery of an amount of ` 25,483/- from the salary of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the case of the petitioner is covered by the ratio of Full Bench judgment of this Court in Budh Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and others (2009-3) PLR 511 as no notice was ever given to him and recovery has been effected after a lapse of more than ten years. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that there was no misrepresentation or concealment on the part of the petitioner. C.W.P. No. 19966 of 2010 (2) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 submits that notice is not required as the fact with regard to non deposit of the amount was in the knowledge of the petitioner. Learned counsel also relies upon the judgment of this Hon'ble the Apex Court in Registrar Cooperative Societies, Haryana and Ors. Vs. Israil Khan and Ors. 2010 (2) RSJ 58, wherein, it has been held that when the fact with regard to any deposit of amount is in the knowledge of the petitioner then no notice is required. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents available on record. Admittedly, no notice has been issued to the petitioner and they is a delay of ten years in issuing the impugned order, whereas, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 submits that the delay occurred on the part of the petitioner as the complaint was filed by him before the Provident Fund Commissioner. Without commenting anything on the merits of the case at this stage and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was not issued any notice and the impugned order has been passed, which is violative of the principles of natural justice, the present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 5.4.2010 is set aside. However, the respondents are at liberty to take necessary action against the petitioner in accordance with law after issuing notice to him and in case, the petitioner is found to be entitled for that amount, the amount already recovered shall be returned to him. July 25, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE C.W.P. No. 19966 of 2010 (3)