Regular Second Appeal No.2859 of 2007 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: March 26, 2010 Inderjit Singh ....Appellant VERSUS Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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? Present: Mr.K.G.Chaudhary, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.H.S.Grewal, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The question involved in this case is whether the cut in pension of the appellant could have been imposed by finding him guilty of some negligence. The appellant-plaintiff, while working as Junior Engineer, was charge sheeted on account of death of one Jarnail Singh son of Sohan Singh on 1.9.1984 due to fatal accident of LT line feeding, Regular Second Appeal No.2859 of 2007 (O&M) : 2 : but the appellant did not guide heirs of the deceased for arranging post mortem etc. He allegedly concealed the fact upto 6.9.1984 as per the report. The appellant was served the charge sheet to which he filed a detailed reply denying the allegations. Respondents- department appointed an enquiry officer, who submitted his report. It is alleged that enquiry conducted was fake one. On 15.2.1990, order stopping two increments with future effect was passed. A show cause notice was served on 16.4.1990 to which the appellant submitted reply. Order treating the period of suspension as non-duty period from 13.8.1984 to 17.5.1985 was passed. The appellant filed a civil suit and Addl.District Judge, Patiala impugning the said order. Vide his judgment dated 6.12.1999, Addl.District Judge, Patiala quashed the impugned order. On 30.3.2000, the respondents thereafter withdrew the orders dated 15.2.1990 and 22.6.1990. The appellant thereafter received an order dated 10.7.2000 imposing cut of 10% in pension for two years and suspension period was again treated as non-duty period. Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed on 26.4.2001, but suspension period was ordered to be treated as leave of kind due. The appellant has, thus, challenged these orders by filing the civil suit. The appellant challenged the orders on the following grounds:- “(i) That the impugned orders are contrary to the judgment of the Addl.District Judge, Patiala. The ADJ has already quashed the orders passed by defendants which Regular Second Appeal No.2859 of 2007 (O&M) : 3 : was implemented by the defendants but in utter disregard to the judgment, the impugned order was passed, which tantamounts to contempt of the court and as such the same are liable to be quashed. (ii)That the impugned orders are against the principles of natural justice. No opportunity of being heard was afforded to the plaintiff before passing the same. It is settled law that even ad administrative order/action involving civil consequences must be passed after adhering with the principles of natural justice. (iii) That it has been established on record that the enquiry officer did not conduct the enquiry in accordance with law and the present punishment order has been issued on the basis of that enquiry report and as such the impugned order is also liable to be quashed.” The suit was contested by the respondents justifying the orders dated 10.7.2000 and 26.4.2001 to be legal and rightly passed. The first Appellate Court noticed that Addl.District Judge, Patiala though had earlier allowed the suit, but had given liberty to the respondents to proceed with the case from the stage of show cause notice. The proceedings were, thus, conducted but much after the retirement of the plaintiff. Rule 6.4 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.II was referred to, which was statedly adopted by the Board, to sustain the impugned order. Mr.Chaudhary, counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the circular issued by the Board which would clearly Regular Second Appeal No.2859 of 2007 (O&M) : 4 : show that Rule 6.4 of the Rules, which was earlier adopted, was subsequently deleted by the State of Punjab on 4.2.1982 and that deletion was also adopted by the Board on 24.12.1982. This aspect has been completely missed by the courts below. This provision of the rule was considered and the impugned order was held justified. Once this provision was deleted, it could not have been relied to sustain the order. Faced with this situation, counsel appearing for the Board has made reference to Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol.II to justify the impugned order. The rule reads as under:- “The Government further reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if, in a departmental or judicial preceding, the pensioner is found guilty of grave mis-conduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re- employment after retirement: Provided that- (1)Such departmental proceedings, if instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall after the final retirement of the officer, be deemed to be a proceeding under this article and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the officer had continued in service; Regular Second Appeal No.2859 of 2007 (O&M) : 5 : (2) Such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment- (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government; (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the officer during his service. (3) No such judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether before this retirement or during his re-employment shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arise or an event which took place more than four years before such institution; and The Public Service Commission should be consulted before final orders are passed.” This rule entitles the Government to withhold or withdraw a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and also has right of ordering recovery of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government from the pension, if in a departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of Regular Second Appeal No.2859 of 2007 (O&M) : 6 : grave mis-conduct or negligence during the period of his service including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement. The counsel for the appellant submits that it is not clear if this rule was adopted by the Board. This aspect may not detain this court any further as circular dated 24.12.1982 would show that this rule was adopted as can be seen from the following part of the circular:- “As regards recoveries on account of outstanding dues/shortages out of pension, detailed procedure is already laid down in rule 2.2 (except 2.2 (a) (i) which has been deleted as stated above) of Pb.C.S.R.Vol.II, a copy of which is enclosed for ready reference. Rule 2.2(b) of Pb.C.S.R.Vol.II interalia provided that a Pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specific period for recovery of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Board can be withheld if in a departmental/judicial proceedings, the Pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service, provided that- (i)Such departmental proceedings are initiated while the officer was in service. (ii) Such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was in service can not be instituted save with the sanction of the Board and shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution.” The issue, thus, which would require consideration is as Regular Second Appeal No.2859 of 2007 (O&M) : 7 : to when can recoveries from the pension could be ordered. Rule 2.2 (b) clearly provides the right to order recoveries from pension for whole or part of peculiar loss caused to the Government. The requirement of averring a loss and then proving the same to enable the respondent-board to direct recovery from the pension, in my view, would be essential legal requirement. To award stoppages or to order recovery from pay or pension of an employee, department has to prove that loss etc. was caused or occasioned by some wrongful act or negligence on the part of the employee. Not only this, the loss must be natural and reasonable, consequence of the particular wrongful act alleged of which he is found guilty. To direct recovery, it is not sufficient to show merely that loss was facilitated or made possible by the alleged misconduct. In other words, the act or omission must constitute `causa-cousan' i.e., the last link in the chain of causation and not merely a `causa sine-qua-non' in which event the employee would have facilitated the loss. Thus, unless the loss is averred and proved, directing recovery from pension under Rule 2.2.(b) of the Rules may not be open to be ordered. In the present case, conceded position is that the appellant was only proceeded against for being negligent. There was no averment made that his negligence led to some loss to the Board. It is doubtful, if any negligence is made out from the charge sheet. Allegations are that the appellant did not apprise the legal heirs about getting post mortem conducted. How that would lead to negligence in performance of duties or any resultant loss to the Board, cannot be understood. The provisions of Rule 2.2.(b) of the Rules, in my view, would not be attracted to the facts of the present case. Here a Regular Second Appeal No.2859 of 2007 (O&M) : 8 : punishment of cut in pension is imposed and it was under para 6.4 of the Rules, which has been deleted. That perhaps would also explain the reason that the Board never took stand on the basis of Rule 2.2 (b) of the Rules before the courts below. The impugned judgment cannot be sustained. The substantial question of law whether a person can be asked to compensate a loss without it being alleged or proved against him, thus, would arise in this case or cut in pension could be imposed or not. This question has not been rightly appreciated by the courts below. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned judgment and the decree under appeal are set-aside. March 26, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE