CWP No.6912 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.6912 of 2009 Date of Decision: 02.03.2010 **** Jaswant Singh . . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . 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. R.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner retired as a Technician Gr-I from the Department of Transport, Government of Punjab. He seeks quashing of the orders dated 21.02.2006, 24.02.2006 and 19.01.2006 (Annexure P2, P3 and P7, respectively) vide which his pay has been reduced/refixed on withdrawal of benefit of Proficiency Step-up as well as ACP and consequential recovery is sought to be effected from his Gratuity. He further seeks a direction to the respondents to release his pension/retiral benefits based upon the salary drawn CWP No.6912 of 2009.doc - 2 – at the time of his retirement along with arrears and interest. (2). Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their counter-affidavit. (3). It is the conceded position that no show cause notice was served upon the petitioner before passing the impugned orders. Suffice it to observe that the impugned orders have serious civil consequences as not only the recovery sought to be effected, the petitioner’s retiral benefits have also been adversely affected. The impugned action could not be taken against the petitioner without observing the principles of natural justice. (4). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed in part; the impugned orders dated 21.02.2006, 24.02.2006 and 19.01.2006 (Annexure P2, P3 and P7, respectively) are hereby quashed with the following directions:- i. the respondents shall issue show cause notice, if so required, to the petitioner disclosing the cause of withdrawal of the benefit earlier granted to him; ii. the petitioner shall be granted four weeks’ time to submit his reply; CWP No.6912 of 2009.doc - 3 – iii. the competent authority shall thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with the Government Policy/rules and the decisions of this Court; iv. The decision shall be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of submission of the reply to the show cause notice, if issued. (5). Needless to say that if the petitioners’ plea is accepted by the competent authority in that event his retiral benefits shall be suitably refixed and the consequential arrears shall also be paid to him within a period of four months from the date of such determination. (6). However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner never misrepresented the facts and it is not the case of the respondents that he ever played any fraud or deceived them to gain the said monetary benefit, I am of the considered view that no recovery can be effected from him, as ruled by the Full Bench of this Court in case of Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2009(3) PLR 511 . (7). The orders qua recovery are accordingly quashed. Recovery, if any, already effected from him, shall be refunded within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, the petitioner shall continue to draw his pension/retiral benefits as per the refixed/reduced rates subject to the CWP No.6912 of 2009.doc - 4 – final decision that the competent authority shall take pursuant to fresh show cause notice, if issued to him. (8). Ordered accordingly. (9). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 02.03.2010 vishal shonkar