RSA No.2931 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2931 of 2009 Date of Decision: 7.8.2009 Director, Technical Education, Haryana and another ......Appellants Versus Dharambir Sharma .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 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: Shri Kulvir Narwal, Additional AG, Haryana. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit of the plaintiff for declaration with the consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants from effecting any recovery from the plaintiff, was decreed. The grievance of the plaintiff is that an order of recovery from his salary has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to him though his pay was rightly fixed by the Management, after taking into consideration the service rendered by him on an unaided post. The learned trial Court decreed the suit primarily on the ground that the order of recovery has been passed by the Management without giving any opportunity of hearing. The learned trial Court also took into RSA No.2931 of 2009 (2) consideration the admission of DW1-D.K.Jain, Lecturer, VTI, Rohtak, that similar benefit granted to the other employees has not been recovered. Such decree was affirmed in appeal as well. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the order of recovery was passed by the Management (defendant No.4) and that the appellants, who are only to reimburse 95% of the recurring expenditure against the un-aided post, therefore, the appellants cannot be restrained from recovering the aforesaid amount. The aforesaid issue is not subject matter of the controversy in the present proceedings. If it is permissible for the defendant-appellants to proceed against the Management -defendant No.4, it is open to the appellant-defendant Nos. 1and 2 to take action against defendant No.4 in accordance with law. Once the impugned order has been set aside on the ground that opportunity of hearing was not granted to the plaintiff, it goes without saying that the defendants have a right to comply with the principles of natural justice before effecting any recovery from the plaintiff-respondent. All the questions inter-set between the parties can be adjudicated upon after an opportunity of hearing is granted to the plaintiff in accordance with law. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 07-08-2009 ds