CWP No. 1316 of 2005 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 1316 of 2005 Date of Decision: 22.2.2008 R.S. Rohilla .......Petitioner Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another ......Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: Shri Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the respondents. 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? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the deduction of Rs.49,530.95p from the amount of leave encashment payable to the petitioner. The petitioner has retired on 30.6.2003 after attaining the age of superannuation. However, a sum of Rs.49,530.95p has been deducted from the retiral benefits payable to the petitioner on account of some missing parts and the shortage of transformer oil. In the reply, it was pointed out that several notices were issued to the petitioner calling upon him to deposit the outstanding amount for the aforesaid reason, but the petitioner failed to give any reply. Therefore, the amount has been deducted from the retiral benefits payable to the petitioner. In support of the said averments in the written statement, the respondents CWP No. 1316 of 2005 (2) have appended Annexures R-1/3, R-1/4, R-1/5 and R-1/6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the documents on record, we are of the opinion that the communications Annexures R-1/3 to R-1/6, are not in the nature of show cause notices, so as to impose a minor penalty of recovery for the loss suffered by the respondents. In fact, the said documents only communicate the amount outstanding against the petitioner. The said communications have no semblance with the show cause notice issued with the intention to impose a punishment of recovery for the loss suffered by the respondents. Thus, it cannot be said that the issuance of the aforesaid communications is an opportunity of hearing before the minor penalty of recovery for the alleged loss suffered by the respondents could be imposed upon the petitioner. We are therefore, of the opinion that the action of the respondents in withholding the amount of Rs.Rs.49,530.95p from the retiral benefits of the petitioner is not justified. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the aforesaid amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to initiate the disciplinary proceedings, if any, against the petitioner, in accordance with law. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE 22-02-2008 ds