IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.6819 of 2008 C.W.P.No.15920 of 2007 Date of Decision:07.04.2008 Rachhpal Singh .....Petitioner versus The Punjab State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Limited and others .....Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Ms.Jagdeep Bains, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.B.S.Mangat, Advocate, for the respondents. *** ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.6819 of 2008 C.M. is allowed and reply filed on behalf of the respondents is taken on record. C.W.P.No.15920 of 2007 The petitioner has prayed that the directions be issued to the respondents to release all the retiral dues to him. The petitioner retired as a District Manager, Muktsar from the service of Markfed on 31.03.2007. Prior to his retirement, 'No Due Certificate' (Annexure P-3) was issued to him wherein it was categorically stated that “as per account books of District Muktsar nothing is due against Sh.Rachhpal Singh, SBO (Dep. as Manager (AEZ)”. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once nothing C.M.No.6819 of 2008 --2-- C.W.P.No.15920 of 2007 was due from the petitioner and he has been allowed to retire without pendency of any departmental inquiry or proceedings then his retiral dues could not be withheld. She has placed reliance upon Ram Narain Dua versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others, 2007 (1) RSJ 402 wherein it has been held as under:- “Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the respondents could not have withheld any amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner on account of allegation which have emanated after the date of his retirement. Such a course is not available to the respondents. In somewhat similar circumstances, this Court has earlier also in the case of Hans Raj Sharma vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others, Civil Writ Petition No.152 of 2004, decided on October 28, 2004, had allowed the writ petition by following the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in P.R.Naik vs. Union of India, AIR 1972 SC 554. It has been laid down in the aforementioned judgment that issuance of charge-sheet for initiation of departmental enquiry is a sine qua non”. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been averred that as per the Special Audit Reports for the year 2006- 2007 pertaining to the period when the petitioner was in service, the petitioner was involved in embezzlement and serious irregularities and various other amounts were due against him. If the charges of embezzlement were pending against the petitioner then there is no reason that 'No Due Certificate' should have been issued to the petitioner. Apart from above, there is no order of recovery against the petitioner. In view of the judgment of Ram Narain Dua's(supra), the gratuity cannot be withheld. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to C.M.No.6819 of 2008 --3-- C.W.P.No.15920 of 2007 the respondents to release the entire gratuity to the petitioner forthwith. As far as the amount of leave encashment and other retiral dues are concerned, the petitioner may furnish surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Managing Director, Markfed and on his furnishing the same, leave encashment and other retiral dues shall also be released to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of furnishing of the surety bonds. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE April 07, 2008 (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) seema JUDGE