C.W.P. No. 11922 of 2011 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 11922 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: 12.07.2011 Rajinder Singh ..........Petitioner Versus Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. OP Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioner. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 8.6.2011 vide which the petitioner has been directed to deposit an amount of ` 1,68,362/- on account of assessment of shortage of wheat and for grant of retiral benefits also as the petitioner has retired on 31.12.2010 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Storeman on 8.12.1978 and later on he was posted as Plinth Incharge and the petitioner was sent on deputation with respondent No.2 vide order dated 24.12.2010. Subsequently he retired on 31.12.2010 and while working as Plinth Incharge, the petitioner was handling the work of wheat stock and no shortage whatsoever occurred during his tenure till his retirement. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no charge or inquiry was pending in this regard in respect of any loss or shortage of wheat stock but still the order of recovery has been passed and retiral benefits have been with-held. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted a legal notice, which is annexed C.W.P. No. 11922 of 2011 (2) as Annexure P-2 with the petition. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier also one Sukhchain Singh filed CWP No. 194 of 2009 before this Court, wherein, he has also challenged the order of recovery, which has been passed without issuing any show cause notice and without giving any opportunity of hearing. The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 25.10.2010 and impugned order dated 1.10.2008 was quashed and it was also mentioned that the respondents are at liberty to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is also at par with Sukhchain Singh but inspite of passing direction in that case, similar order has been passed in the case of the petitioner also. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Although order dated 25.10.2010 was passed after issuing notice of motion but allegations in that case were same. Moreover the impugned order of recovery was also passed without issuing any show cause notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is also at par with the case of Sukhchain Singh and, therefore, it is not necessary to issue any notice to the other party. Keeping in view the directions already issued in CWP No. 194 of 2009, the present petition is allowed and impugned order of recovery dated 8.6.2011 (Annexure P-4) is quashed. The respondents are at liberty to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and pass an appropriate order after affording opportunity of hearing in accordance with law. Disposed of accordingly. July 12, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE C.W.P. No. 11922 of 2011 (3) Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No