CWP No.22885 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 22.12.2010 Mehar Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Jagbir Malik, Advocate for the petitioner Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) Keeping in view the controversy involved and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of at motion stage itself, without insisting for reply. The petitioner joined service on 10.12.1967 as T-Mate on work charge basis. His services were regularized as Assistant Lineman on 29.7.1970 and he was promoted to the post of Line Man in the year 2006. He retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2008. It is stated that during the period the petitioner was in service, he was in-charge of various transformers. There was shortage of oil and breakages of the parts of damaged transformers. A survey was got conducted and after the survey, it was found that the petitioner is not liable for any shortage/breakage. Respondents issued additional instruction whereby it CWP No.22885 of 2010 2 was decided to condone the breakage upto a maximum of 5% of the existing cost of transfer and for shortage of maximum of 20% of the total cost of trasformer oil. In the event the shortage and breakage is more than the prescribed limits, the same can be recovered from the concerned employee. On the basis of the aforesaid instruction, the respondents have withheld the gratuity amount of the petitioner. It is admitted case of the parties that no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner during the period he was in service or even after his retirement. The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents vide which recovery has been made from the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties that the issue involved in this petition is no more res integra, having been settled by this court in the case of D.D.Tewari vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others, CWP No.1048 of 2010 decided on 25.8.2010 wherein following observations/directions have been made:- “Admittedly, no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner during the period he was in service or even after his retirement. Recovery from an employee is one of the prescribed punishment. No punishment can be imposed without initiating disciplinary proceedings. Admittedly, no disciplinary proceedings were ever initiated against the petitioner at any stage. Thus the impugned order (Annexure P-3) and action of the respondents in affecting recovery from the petitioner is illegal and impermissible in law. This petition is accordingly allowed and Annexure P-3 is CWP No.22885 of 2010 3 quashed. Respondents are directed to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner from his gratuity within a period of three months.” This petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations/directions of this Court. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 22.12.2010 MFK CWP No.10585 of 2010 4