IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.21602 of 2008 Date of decision:03.03.2010 Smt. Anita Biala ....Petitioner versus The Punjab State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Limited, Sector 35, Chandigarh through its Managing Director. ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges a recovery of Rs.44,043.19 from the terminable benefits paid to widow of ex-employee in the respondent organization. The petitioner's husband had died on 21st December, 2003 and the disbursal of the monetary benefits were made on 19th June, 2006, after the petitioner had approached for the payment of the retiral benefits. The deduction of the amount of Rs.44,043.19 was made on an alleged loss caused by the deceased employee. The contention of the petitioner was that no enquiry had been constituted for the so-called loss and it was not possible for the respondent to make such deductions without establishing that her husband's conduct had caused loss to such an extent. Civil Writ Petition No.21602 of 2008 - 2 - 2. The statement in defence by the respondent was that the petitioner's husband had admitted that an amount of Rs.44,043.19 was recoverable from him and to that extent, he had made entries in the books maintained with the respondents. The respondent has filed Annexure R-3 that details the information furnished to the Information Commission on an application moved by the petitioner requiring the details of the alleged admission made by her husband. The relevant entry is as follows:- 5 (iii) Copy of letter if any wherein the deceased Sh. Ashok Kumar Biala had admitted that the entries made to the tune of Rs.44043.00 are recoverable from him 1. Rs.17800.00 the official while working as Incharge erstwhile Constofed sub office Patiala had taken into account Rs.8900.00 twice as DD sent to H.O. 2. Rs.9010.00 Salary of March 99 paid twice to Ashok Kumar and Santokh Singh. 3. Rs.13050.00 Amounts withdrawn from PNB Nangal but not taken into books. 4. Rs.4183.19 amt. excess paid to supplier. Copies of day book pages of sub office Patiala dated 30.6.76 and 30.6.82 at cp-7 to 13 debiting the same entry to head office twice. Payment of salary for himself and helper for the month of March 99. Copy of cash vouchers at cp-15 & 17. Rs.6025/- & 7025/- withdrawn from PNB Nangal. Copy of bank statement & reconciliation statement at cp-19 & 21. Copy of Trial balance at cp-23 as on 2001.2002 where supplier a/c shown on debit side indicating amount excess paid. 3. The information supplied before the Information Commission does not, in my view, make the position better for the respondent. It does not set out anywhere that the petitioner's husband has made any admission. Of all the 4 items that total up Rs.44,043.19, the 1st item mentioned above is meaningless gibberish and the counsel for the respondent is not able to make it comprehensible. Items 2, 3 and 4 are not supported by any documents. Even if there exists any such proof, the same ought to have been a subject of enquiry and a specific Civil Writ Petition No.21602 of 2008 - 3 - finding against the petitioner's husband that he was responsible for causing such monetary loss to the respondent. The recovery made at the time of disbursal of the monetary benefits was clearly untenable. No monetary liability could be cast on a person without even affording to the person, who is aggrieved by such recovery an opportunity to explain. Rules of natural justice have been brazenly violated and I have no doubt in my mind that the deduction of Rs.44,043.19 from the terminal benefits was unauthorized. 4. The further justification for not initiating any enquiry was that the loss itself was found only after the death of the employee and therefore, the enquiry could not be constituted . This submission is also inconsistent with a contention already made that there had been an admission of the liability by the ex-employee. Even after the death of a person if the deduction was going to be made and it was going to the affect of the estate of the deceased, even then, the decision could not have been done without putting the petitioner on notice, as person, who was entitled to recover the amount as an heir to the estate of the deceased. 5.. The writ petition is allowed and the amount withheld is directed to be paid to the petitioner within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order with interest at 7.5% from 19.06.2006 till the date of payment. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 03.03.2010 sanjeev