IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19564 of 2010 Date of Decision : November 01, 2010. Darshan Ram .....Petitioner versus Food Corporation of India and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.H.S.Batth, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner served as AG-II (D) in the respondent- Corporation and has retired w.e.f. 31.3.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation. He is aggrieved by a series of recovery orders passed by the respondents from time to time i.e. Annexures P-2 to P-24 imposing heavy recoveries on him. One of the petitioner's grievance is that no opportunity of hearing and/or show cause notice has been served on him before passing these orders. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and on perusing the impugned orders, I am of the considered view that most of these orders have been passed as a result of the departmental C.W.P.No .19564 of 2010 2 action taken against the petitioner who, if so advised, may file departmental appeal(s) against these orders alongwith an application for condonation of delay. Suffice it to observe that the petitioner's contention regarding non-observance of the principles of natural justice would be required to be positively dealt with by the appellate authority, who in turn is directed to decide the petitioner's appeal by passing a speaking order as early as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of filing. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. November 01, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE