C.W.P No. 5224 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 5224 of 2008 Date of decision : February 19, 2009 Asa Ram Rathee, ...... Petitioner (s) v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Narinder Hooda, Advocate for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This writ petition has been filed for challenging the order dated 20.12.2006 (Annexure P-4) directing recovery of Rs.44037.20 including an amount of Rs.40636/- on account of shortage of certain parts, the other components being penal rent, some T.A advance and excess pay. This recovery was ordered after giving a show cause notice and considering the reply. A similar matter came up before this Court in CWP No.12036 of 2008, Suraj Mal vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd and others, C.W.P No. 5224 of 2008 ::2:: decided on 11.9.2008, wherein a Division Bench of this Court held as follows :- “ Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the respondents could not have withheld any amount of retiral benefits payable to the petitioner on account of allegation which have emanated after the date of his retirement. Such a course is not available to the respondents. In some what similar circumstances, this court has earlier also in the case of Hans Raj Sharma v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others (CWP No.152 of 2004) decided on October 29, 2004) has allowed the writ petition by following the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in P.R.Naik vs Union of India, AIR 1972 SC 554. It has been laid down in the aforementioned judgment that issuance of charge-sheet for initiation of department enquiry is a sine qua non. Similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Narain Dua v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others, 2007(1) RSJ 402 by placing reliance on the judgments in the case of Hans Raj Sharma and P.R.Naik (supra).” Counsel for the respondents could not deny that the controversy in the present case is squarely covered by the decision in Suraj Mal's case (supra). Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the order C.W.P No. 5224 of 2008 ::3:: (Annexure P-4) is quashed. Liberty is, however, granted to the respondents to initiate the process afresh, in accordance with law, in case they want to make any recovery. The respondents are directed to pay the amount illegally withheld on account of shortage to the petitioner within two months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order, subject to his furnishing security to the satisfaction of respondent No.3 that in case ultimately recovery order is passed, the respondents would be able to effect the same. It is further directed that for delay in releasing other superannuation benefits to the petitioner, the respondents would be liable to pay interest @ 8% p.a for the period commencing six months after the date of retirement till the date of actual payment. This payment be also made within the aforesaid period of two months. ( AJAY TEWARI ) February 19, 2009. JUDGE `kk'