Civil Writ Petition No. 20336 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 20336 of 2008 Date of decision: 25.05.2011 M.S. Malhan ...Petitioner Versus UHBVNL and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Navender P.K. Singh, Advocate for the respondents. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner has challenged the order whereby the recovery of ` 78,400/- on account of cost of 220 PCC Poles and other recovery of Rs. 4.20 lakhs on account of award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kurukshetra have been directed to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner was working as ASO and has now retired. While in service, he was served with two charges dated 01.10.1990 and 10.06.2002. The charges preferred against the petitioner are as under:- “1. Charge Sheet No. Ch-7/Conf./EP-532/L dated 01.10.1990 He issued 200 Nos. PCC Poles of 8 Mtr. Long and 20 Nos. PCC Poles of 9 Mtr. Long by using old Store Civil Writ Petition No. 20336 of 2008 2 Requisition No. 6/923 dated 16.02.1990 to Sh. P.N. Jain, JE, Sub Office, Palawas whereas Sh. Jain was not on duty w.e.f. 08.11.1989 to date of issue and thereafter. Thus he misappropriated these 220 No. PCC Poles costing to Rs. 78,400/- and as such he is responsible for making fraud. 2. Charge Sheet No. Ch-356/EP-532 dated 10.06.2002 He did not get insured the Truck No. HRR-2423. Due to non-payment of Insurance premium in-time, which resulted in burdening Board/Nigam to pay compensation of Rs. 4.20 lac awarded by MACT, Kurukshetra. This happened when a Scooter met with accident with Truck and driver of Scooter died.” After holding an inquiry, the petitioner was found responsible for the lapses. The order of recovery was passed against him after his retirement. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same, which was rejected being time barred. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court and the Division Bench had disposed of the writ petition with the direction to the competent authority to decide the appeal on merit in accordance with law. The appellate order passed was set aside with liberty to competent authority to decide the appeal in accordance with law. Now the appellate authority has again passed the order which the petitioner has impugned through the present writ petition. The appellate authority has refused to learn. The earlier order was set aside as the appeal was dismissed as barred by time. Now the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed without Civil Writ Petition No. 20336 of 2008 3 recording any reason whatsoever. The impugned order just narrates the charges preferred against the petitioner. Mention is then made to the order passed by the competent authority directing the recovery. It is then recorded that the appellate authority after going through the whole record find no merit in the appeal. The operative part of the order is as under:- “ The appellate authority after going through the whole record/documents as well as comments of field offices, found no merit in the appeal and decided to upheld the decision of CE/MM UHBVN, Panchkula vide O/o No. 83 dated 04.07.2005.” No reasons are contained in the order as to why the points raised by the petitioner have not found favour with the appellate authority. Apart from the other submissions, the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the direction to recover the sum of ` 4.20 lacs from the petitioner after his retirement on the ground that the vehicle which met with accident was not got insured while he was officiating, is highly excessive, unfair and unreasonable. I would tend to agree with the submissions so made. The petitioner has also raised certain arguable points, which need to be considered by the appellate authority. The disciplinary and the appellate authority cannot wish away their responsibilities. This is second time the competent officer exercising these quasi judicial powers have failed to act in accordance with law. If such is the knowledge on the part of the officers exercising such powers, then the department may have some lessons for the appellate authority or the other persons, who Civil Writ Petition No. 20336 of 2008 4 has to deal with the disciplinary matters so that the persons, to be dealt with, do not suffer at the hands of such officials. The case is made out for setting aside this cryptic and unreasoned order passed by the appellate authority. The appellate authority is directed to take into consideration all points raised by the petitioner in his appeal. The petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing. The petitioner would be at liberty to raise his grounds of appeal in writing before the appellate authority. The appellate authority would then pass the speaking order dealing with each ground and give reason for rejecting or accepting the same. The punishment of recovery in the background that the vehicle was not got insured has to be considered in the light of observations made in MACT award. The action of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority in recovering the whole amount is certainly unfair and uncalled for. This aspect shall be taken into consideration by the appellate authority. Can such amount be recovered from the petitioner without fastening the respondents on the driver would have to be seen. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Order, Annexure P-2 is set aside. The appellate authority would pass fresh order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. For that purpose, the petitioner would appear before the appellate authority on 10.06.2011. May 25, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE