IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 19152 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.1.2009. Housing Board Haryana ---Petitioner Vs. Gian Chand and others ---Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present:- Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.N. Raina, Advocate for respondents. *** AJAY TEWARI.J (ORAL) This writ petition has been filed to challenge the order (Annexure P-1), whereby the appeal of respondent no.1 against the punishment order was allowed. Three tenements were allotted by the petitioner-Housing Board on different dates in the year 1976. On 22.4.1976 the petitioner Board built an amendment to its regulations, whereby clause 2 (w) was added. Infact, this amendment precluded the petitioner Board from demanding any enhanced price after a period of 7 years from the date of allotment. Subsequently, when the petitioner made a demand for enhanced price, the same was challenged by the allottees by way of three civil suits. It is not disputed that in the Higher Purchase Tenancy Agreement (HPTA) in each of the three cases, clause 2(w) was not included regardless of whether the allotment was made prior to 22.4.1976 or after 22.4.1976. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents did not produce CWP No. 19152 of 2008 (O&M) -2- these original HPTAs and that is why the suits filed by these allottees were decreed and thus the Board was deprived of the enhanced price and this action of the respondents led to disciplinary proceedings. The charge sheet did not include any element of fraud or such like. The Enquiry Officer held that it was the duty of the respondent to go through the original HPTA and his omission to do so proved his guilt. Thereafter, the competent authority imposed the punishment of reduction of rank from the post of Estate Manager to Clerk and to recover a sum of Rs. 4 lacs out of the total financial loss of Rs. 9,85,628.90/-. In appeal the appellate authority set aside the order holding that as per law, after the introduction of clause 2(w) the petitioner Board could not make any recovery and therefore the omission to place the original HPTA did not influence the Court and thus there was no fault on the part of the respondent. Even before me, today, the original record was produced and it has borne out that in one of the case viz. L.P. Sehgal the allotment was prior to the amendment and in one of the case viz. Yashpal Ahuja the allotment was after the amendment. As regards the third case of Pardeep Suri the original record was not available. I put it to the learned counsel for the petitioner whether this inadvertent omission to produce the original record relating to Pardeep Suri could after a few years be used as a stick to beat the person who brought the record today and he was gracious enough to say that it was an inadvertent error. In any case this aspect has not been considered in working out the alleged loss caused to the petitioner. The second interesting aspect that has been brought to my notice is a letter dated 24.1.1979 issued by the petitioner to the aforesaid L.P. Sehgal, it was mentioned as follows:- “ It has been observed that the final cost is more than the CWP No. 19152 of 2008 (O&M) -3- tentative cost already communicated to at the time of allotment. However, in view of the proviso to Regulation 10(3) of Housing Board Haryana (Allotment, Management & Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1972, the price of any tenement cannot be changed to the disadvantage of an allottee after the execution of the Agreement though this provision has been deleted since 22.4.77. Since the agreement was executed prior to the deletion of this provision, so the Board has decided not to charge more than the tentative cost already communicated to you at the time of allotment.” It is clear that even the effect of Regulation 10(3) (supra) as it stood prior to 2nd April, 1977 has not been considered at all by the authorities. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the parties are agreed that it could be in the interest of justice if the orders Annexure P-1 and P-2 are set aside and the matter be remitted back to the punishing authority for a fresh consideration of the entire matter. In these circumstances, orders Annexure P-1 and P-2 are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the punishing authority to take a fresh decision from the stage of examining the enquiry report. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE 15.1.2009 lucky