CWP No.772 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.772 of 2009 Date of Decision: 26.07.2010 **** Santosh Rani . . . . Petitioner VS. Punjab State Electricity Board and Ors . . . . . 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. B.N Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate for the respondents ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 20.04.2005 (Annexure P2) whereby a sum of Rs.3,00,050/- have been deducted from the retiral dues of her deceased husband, namely, Sant Ram on account of the alleged loss caused by him to the Punjab State Electricity Board. The petitioner also seeks a direction for the release of the said amount. (2). Shorn of the details, suffice it to mention here that the husband of the petitioner was a Junior Engineer in the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity CWP No.772 of 2009.doc - 2 – Board and he unfortunately passed away on 15th September, 1996 while in service. As the petitioner was entitled to the ‘family pension’ and other terminal benefits like Gratuity, Leave Encashment etc., she applied for the release of these service benefits. (3). It was pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in an earlier writ petition that the respondents passed the impugned order dated 20.04.2005 (Annexure P2) whereby rest of the retiral dues and other terminal benefits though were ordered to be released, however, after holding that on verification a shortage of material worth Rs.6,05,101/- was found to have been caused due to the negligence of the deceased employee and consequently the arrears of Gratuity and Leave encashment amounting to Rs.3,00,050/- were adjusted against the same. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. (4). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The foremost contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that neither the deceased-employee was ever charge-sheeted nor an enquiry to establish his alleged negligence CWP No.772 of 2009.doc - 3 – was held during his lifetime. The action of the respondents in imposing the punishment of ‘recovery’ after the death of the employee on an assumption that he had caused the loss due to negligence, is wholly arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. (5). The respondents in their reply/affidavit though have maintained that the deceased employee was responsible for the alleged loss suffered by the PSEB, it is not denied that no enquiry was ever held nor the deceased employee was ever found guilty of any negligence during his lifetime. (6). It is the conceded legal position that no enquiry can now be held against an employee after his death. (7). In the absence of any determination of the deceased employee’s liability or responsibility towards the alleged loss in accordance with principles of natural justice, I am of the considered view that no deduction in the instant case could be made by the respondents merely on an assumption and surmises. (8). For the reasons afore-stated the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 20.04.2005 (Annexure P2) to the extent of recovery of a sum of CWP No.772 of 2009.doc - 4 – Rs.3,00,050/- from the arrears of Gratuity and Leave Encashment etc. payable to the petitioner due to the demise of her husband is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the aforesaid amount to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order failing which the petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum. (9). Ordered accordingly. (10). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 26.07.2010 vishal shonkar