CWP No.1714 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.1714 of 2008 Date of decision: 7.8.2008 Baljeet Singh -----Petitioner Vs. UHBVNL and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the respondents. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of instructions providing for recovery of loss from the employee without there being finding of his being negligent resulting in the loss and consequential order of making deduction from the terminal benefits of the retired employee. 2. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner served the respondent-Electricity Corporation from 1970 to 2006. While settling his retrial benefits, a sum of Rs.41944/- was withheld out 1 Civil Writ Petition No.1714 of 2008 of the gratuity on account of shortage of oil and breakage of damaged transformers. The petitioner contested the said action by pointing out that no recovery could be made from him without his having been found responsible for the loss. The respondents have not, however, accepted the petitioner’s stand. 3. The petitioner has referred to Anenxure P.1 wherein finding is recorded that the petitioner was not responsible for the loss. 4. In the reply, factual averment in Para 3 of the writ petition that the petitioner was not found to be at fault for the loss has not been disputed. However, it is mentioned that as per instructions dated 2.9.2005 Annexure P.6, a part of shortage was to be recovered from the petitioner. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It is not necessary to go into the question whether issuance of charge sheet or following of any other procedure was necessary or not for effecting the recovery, in view of undisputed factual position that the petitioner was held not to be responsible for the loss caused in which case, there is no justification to effect any recovery from the petitioner even after following the procedure. 2 Civil Writ Petition No.1714 of 2008 7. Accordingly, we allow this petition and quash the action of recovery from the terminal benefits of the petitioner for the loss which may have been caused to the respondents. Consequential benefits available to the petitioner be worked out within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge August 7, 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) ‘gs’ Judge 3