C.W.P. No.17920 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.17920 of 2009 Date of Decision.19.05.2010 Shiv Ram ........Petitioner Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Kaliramna, Advocate for Mr. B.S. Rana, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. Written statement filed is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner is present. There is representation on behalf of learned counsel for the respondent for adjournment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner pleads extreme hardship contending that he has not been paid the terminal benefits right from October, 2005 when he retired. Having regard to the hardship pleaded by the petitioner, I hasten to take up the case and proceed to dispose of the case on the basis of the records and with the assistance of the counsel for the petitioner. The denial of the C.W.P. No.17920 of 2009 -2- terminal benefits to the petitioner has been occasioned on account of an issue of show cause notice on 04.05.2006 and subsequent notice on 08.10.2007 alleging some shortage of materials and the office order which has been issued on 12.04.2006 complaining of inability of the Nigam to process his pension case in view of non- regularization of his absence between specific periods, non- submission of MES accounts and non-submission of certain records. Subsequently show cause notices have been issued on 04.05.2006 and 08.10.2007 but it appears that no decision has been taken on the basis of show cause notices. In the reply filed, there is no information other than the main allegations that the petitioner did not return some documents and that there have been notices issued to the respondents for shortage of oil of damaged distribution transformers. Memos also appear to have been issued to the petitioner at various times to explain the alleged loss of materials. 3. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that he remains retired and he has no records with him and mere issuance of show cause notice cannot hamper the process of retiral benefits. Rules, which govern the payment of retiral benefits and particularly 2.2 (b) in the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II provide for a right of withholding the pension or any part of it if the pensioner is found in departmental or any other proceedings guilty of grave misconduct or has caused pecuniary loss to the Government by misconduct and negligence during his service. The explanation (1) provides that the departmental proceedings would be deemed to be instituted when the charges were framed against the pensioner or C.W.P. No.17920 of 2009 -3- issued to him or, if the officer had been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date. Admittedly no charge-sheet has been framed against the petitioner. Therefore, the question of suspension does not arise, since the employee has been allowed to be retired. There are also no judicial proceedings instituted while the Officer was in duty, either before his retirement or during his employment. According to him, therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied the pension or other benefits. The learned counsel also refers to decision of this Court in Ram Phal Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited in C.W.P. No.1318 of 2009 decided on 08.01.2010 that a mere service of notice which did not culminate in an enquiry or finding that an employee shall liable for any particular sum representing the damage or loss could not be a justifiable cause to withhold retiral benefits. If the Rules permitted the constitution of an enquiry even subsequent to his superannuation, this Court held that the respondents would be at liberty to take such action and establish the guilt but in the meanwhile it would be impermissible to withhold payment of the retiral benefits. The decision was being rendered in the context of deduction of certain sums from the retiral benefits. 4. As I pointed out already, the reply does not anywhere refer to any final determination of amount as due and payable by the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the petitioner cannot be denied his retiral benefits. There shall be a direction issued to the respondent to release all the retiral benefits with interest @9% when the amounts fell due and the entire exercise shall be done within a C.W.P. No.17920 of 2009 -4- period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 5. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 19, 2010 Pankaj*