IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16327 of 2009 Date of Decision: 16.08.2010 Partap Singh ........Petitioner Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Parveen Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. ****** PERMOD KOHLI, J. Petitioner joined the service of the respondents as Assistant Lineman in the year 1969. He earned promotions as Lineman, Assistant Foreman and Junior Engineer from time to time. He retired from service on 31.07.2005 on attaining the age of superannuation. While in service, petitioner was placed under suspension on 15.05.2001 (Annexure P-2) but reinstated, vide order dated 15.10.2001 (Annexure P-3) without prejudice to the departmental action against him. Separate proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and vide order dated 25.04.2006 (Annexure P-5), recovery of withholding one increment, without future effect was imposed upon him. Admittedly, this order was passed after retirement of the petitioner. Respondent No.4 wrote a letter to respondent No.2 for regularization of period of suspension of the petitioner from 15.05.2001 to 31.10.2001 (Annexure P-7). Respondent No.2, however, asked respondent No.4 to regularize the suspension period of the petitioner at his own level, vide his letter dated 05.09.2008 (Annexure P-9). Petitioner, vide his letter dated 10.09.2008 requested respondent No.3 to regularize the services as CWP No.16327 of 2009 -2- respondent No.4 is not competent to regularize his period of suspension. Despite correspondence between the authorities and petitioner, no order was passed for regularization of the period of suspension. In the meantime, petitioner was released the amount of GPF and was also granted provisional pension at the rate of 75% and other retiral benefits were withheld. Aggrieved from the action of the respondents, petitioner filed C.W.P. No.18733 of 2008 titled as Partap Singh Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others, before this Court. This writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 03.11.2008 (Annexure P-13) asking the respondents to decide the notice earlier served by the petitioner by speaking order. Even this direction was not complied with, which forced the petitioner to file a contempt petition No.1438 of 2009 titled as Partap Singh Versus G.L.Goomer (Annexure P-17). During the pendency of the contempt petition, respondents passed the impugned order dated 18.09.2009 (Annexure P-16) for recovery of Rs.5,02,412/-. Petitioner was directed to challenge this order. This petition has been accordingly filed challenging the recovery order against the petitioner. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the recovery has been ordered from the retiral benefits of the petitioner in the following manner:- (A) Recovery of shortage of oil and missing parts of damaged Transformers Rs.80670/- (B) Recovery of shortage of oil and missing parts of damaged Transformers & Misc. advances Rs.193378/- (C ) Recovery intimated by Chief/Auditor; UHBVN Panchkula Rs.49283/- (D) Recovery for non passing the safety code test and excess pay drawn. Rs.175262/- (E) Recovery equivalent to one annual increment stopped without future effect. Rs.2816/- Net Recoverable Amount Rs.502412/- In the written statement, the respondents have justified the CWP No.16327 of 2009 -3- recovery on account of alleged shortage of oil and missing parts of the damaged transformers and miscellaneous advances etc. against the Items No. A to D whereas amount of Rs.2816/- is shown to be recoverable on account of withholding of one increment on the basis of penalty imposed upon the petitioner in this regard. All the recoveries except stoppage of increment are on account of alleged shortage of oil and missing parts of damaged transformers and some misc. advances. It is admitted case of the respondents that no enquiry was ever held against the petitioner in respect to the alleged shortage and missing parts etc. Even the audit report made basis for the recovery was never served upon the petitioner. All these recoveries have been made without any opportunity of being heard having been provided to the petitioner. Recovery is one of the punishment prescribed under the rules. Though recovery is a minor penalty, however, a minor penalty also cannot be imposed without initiating the departmental proceedings in accordance with the rules. No disciplinary proceedings in this regard were ever initiated against the petitioner. Thus, the recoveries from the petitioner were totally illegal and without any sanction of law except an amount of Rs.2816/-, which is the outcome of the penal action in departmental proceedings. In view of the above circumstances, this petition is partly allowed. Impugned order dated 18.09.2009 is hereby quashed except in respect to recovery of Rs.2816 (E) as recovery equivalent to one annual increment of the impugned order. Respondents are directed to release the amount recovered from the retiral benefits of the petitioner within a period of two months. 16.08.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) Gagan JUDGE