CWP No.1356 of 2007.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.1356 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.03.2010 **** Dr. Inder Krishan Sharma, . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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. Inderjit Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.4 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner was a member of the Punjab Civil Medical Services-I. On completion of 18 years of regular service, he was placed in the pay-scale of Rs.3700-5300 w.e.f. 04.11.1996 and was re- designated as Chief Medical Officer vide order dated 21st January/2nd February, 1998 (Annexure P2). (2). The petitioner was due for retirement on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.11.2003. A few days before his retirement, the State Government slapped him with an order dated 1st CWP No.1356 of 2007.doc - 2 – October/15th October, 2003 (Annexure P6), whereby, the above-mentioned order dated 22nd January/2nd February, 1998 was withdrawn holding that the petitioner did not possess the requisite good entries in the Annual Confidential Reports to make him eligible for the grant of higher pay scale after completion of 14/18 years of service, as the case may be. (3). Aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court. (4). Upon notice, the respondents have filed their counter-reply/affidavit. It is the conceded position that before passing the impugned order, no show cause notice or opportunity of personal hearing has been afforded to the petitioner. Admittedly, the impugned order visits the petitioner with civil consequences as it has not only reduced his pay but also entails recovery as well as reduction in the pension and his other retiral benefits. The said order could not have been passed without observing the principles of natural justice, more-so when the petitioner’s positive case before this Court is that no adverse report was ever communicated to him. CWP No.1356 of 2007.doc - 3 – (5). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no recovery, in any circumstance, can be effected from him for the reason that the petitioner never misrepresented the facts nor played any fraud or deceived the authorities at the time of passing of the order dated 21st January/2nd February, 1998 (Annexure P2). It is urged that the authorities themselves granted the higher pay- scale and re-designated the petitioner as Chief Medical Officer, after perusal of his service record. No recovery of the alleged undeserving monetary benefit(s) received by the petitioner can, thus, be effected from him as ruled by a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2009(3) PLR 511 . (6). In my considered opinion, both the contentions, noticed above, merit acceptance. It is well-settled that an order causing civil consequences cannot be passed without observing the principles of natural justice. The impugned order has reduced the petitioner’s pay scale as well as the retiral benefits and, therefore, could not be passed without hearing him. Similarly, the petitioner did not mislead the authorities nor concealed any material facts at the time of grant of higher pay- CWP No.1356 of 2007.doc - 4 – scale or re-designation as Chief Medical Officer. The order qua recovery, in any case, cannot sustain as held in Budh Ram’s case (supra). (7). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned dated 1st/15th October, 2003 (Annexure P6) is hereby quashed and the consequential order dated 12.12.2003 (Annexure P8) refixing the petitioner’s pay as well as the order of recovery dated 09.01.2006 (Annexure P15), are also quashed. As a sequel thereto, it is directed that no recovery shall be effected from the petitioner on account of the withdrawal of higher pay-scales and/or reduction of pay-scales. The recovery, if any, already made shall be refunded to the petitioner as early as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (8). However, it shall not preclude the competent authority to pass a fresh and appropriate orders in accordance with law, if so desired. (9). Ordered accordingly. (10). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 16.03.2010 vishal shonkar