HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.8367 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.01.2011 **** Gurjant Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. PSEB & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? **** Present: Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. MS Virk, Advocate for Dr. PK Sekhon, Advocate for the respondents ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner joined the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board as an Assistant Lineman in November, 1967 and has finally retired from the post of Junior Engineer-II w.e.f. 30.09.2006 on attaining the age of superannuation. On the eve of his retirement, the petitioner has been bid ‘farewell’ with four recovery orders dated 24.08.2006 (Annexures P9, P11, P12 & P13, respectively) followed by the orders dated 03.05.2007 (Annexure P14) and 02.11.2007 (Annexures P16, P17, & P18, respectively) passed after his retirement also whereby Rs.3,94,976/- have been ordered to be recovered from him, giving rise to these proceedings. CWP No.8367 of 2009.doc - 2 – (2). The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit defending the recovery orders and maintaining that the punitive measures have been taken against the petitioner as per the prescribed procedure. (3). Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the record, I find that one of the recovery orders dated 28.06.2007 (Annexures P4) which led to issuance of actual recovery order dated 11.06.2008 (Annexure P3) is pursuant to a regular enquiry held against the petitioner. The said punishment order is concededly appealable under the Rules. (4). The writ petition qua the said order is accordingly disposed with liberty to the petitioner to file a departmental appeal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Appellate Authority is directed not to reject the appeal on the ground of limitation and the same shall be decided on merits preferably after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four months from the date of submission of the appeal. (5). Adverting to the order dated 03.05.2007 (Annexure P14), counsel for the respondent could not dispute that the same has been passed on the premise that the petitioner failed to give clearance of the stored material valuing 2 CWP No.8367 of 2009.doc - 3 – Rs.22,94,899/-. The petitioner has placed on record the memo dated 05.08.2005 (Annexure P19) which reads as follows:- In context with the aforesaid subject, the letter No.14083 dated 24.6.2005 which was issued by Chief Engineer (D) West Zone, Bathinda. It is being written that the employee has submitted his accounts (of Rs.22,94,899/-) to the office of Assistant Executive Engineer (D) Sub Division, Mallanwala. After the reconciliation, no due certificate has been issued to him (copy is enclosed). There is no shortage of stores towards him. Therefore, it is recommended that the employee may be reinstated during the pending enquiry. (Emphasis applied) (6). It may, thus, be seen that the petitioner had actually submitted the accounts of Rs.22,94,899/- and “there was no shortage of stores towards him…..”. (7). The order dated 03.05.2007 (Annexure P14) has been apparently passed without application of mind and contrary to the records and the same is hereby quashed. (8). This takes us to three other punitive orders dated 02.11.2007 (Annexure P16, P17 and P18 respectively). All the three orders are similarly-worded and do not assign any reason whatsoever as to how the explanations tendered by the petitioner to the charge-sheets dated 17.05.2007, 27.05.2007, 17.05.2007 served on him after 3 CWP No.8367 of 2009.doc - 4 – his retirement have been found unsatisfactory. Vide these impugned recovery orders the punishment of cut of 10%, 5%, 5%, respectively on the pension of the petitioner for a limited period of one year has been imposed which are totally cryptic, laconic and have been passed mechanically. As the orders have civil consequences and appears to have been passed pursuant to some departmental action taken against the petitioner, it was imperative upon the disciplinary authority to assign reasons for rejecting the petitioner’s explanation and/or while imposing the above-stated punishments. The orders do not satisfy the requirement of principles of natural justice and fair play. The same are also accordingly quashed. (9). The respondents are directed to release the deducted amount in favour of the petitioner on his furnishing indemnity bond(s) to the satisfaction of the competent authority, however, with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law, if so advised. (10). The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (11). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 18.01.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge 4 CWP No.8367 of 2009.doc - 5 – 5