CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1458 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 17 ,2011 Niranjan Kumar Sharma .....Petitioner VERSUS Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam, Panchkula and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: None for the petitioner. Mr. Parveen Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the charge sheet dated 1.1.2008. This charge sheet was served to the petitioner long ago. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to release the balance 25% pension and other retiral benefits, which have been CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1458 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: withheld alongwith interest @ 24% per annum. The petitioner had joined the service of the Haryana State Electricity Board as Assistant Lineman on 21.5.1970. The Board had been bifurcated and the petitioner was allocated to Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam in the year 1996. The petitioner retired as Assistant Foreman on 30.6.2007. The petitioner was served a charge sheet on 1.1.2008 for carelessness in performance of his duties, due to which the line losses on two feeders under his charge had increased during a particular period. The period during which the losses had increased is not found mentioned. That, in my view, may also be relevant as upon that date would dependent whether the respondents have any right to proceed against the petitioner with such allegation or not. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 12.3.2008. On 16.4.2008, the petitioner was issued letter, asking him to return certain transformers, which had got burnt. The petitioner prayed for supply of labour and vehicle. Thereafter, some other letters were exchanged. As nothing was done to provide the labour, the transformers were not returned. `No demand certificate', thus, could not be issued. The petitioner accordingly was informed that remaining retiral benefits can not be released to him, till no demand certificate is provided. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Written statement has been filed. It is pointed out that upon receipt of the reply from the petitioner, Enquiry Officer was appointed, who gave two opportunities of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner, however, did not appear before the Enquiry Officer, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1458 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: who, after going through the complete record, came to conclude that line losses had increased during the tenure of the petitioner but considering the fact of rush of work and acute shortage of staff, the Enquiry Officer recommended sympathetic consideration of the reply filed by the petitioner. On the basis of the charge sheet, reply and the report, the petitioner was imposed a penalty vide Annexure R4/2 for recovery of amount equal to last one annual increment from the pending dues of the petitioner. When the case came up for hearing, no one appeared for the petitioner. Counsel for the respondents was, however, asked to explain whether the punishment, as given in Annexure R4/2, can legally be imposed on the petitioner in terms of the regulations applicable to the employees of the Board. The counsel could not point out to any provision vide which such a punishment could be imposed. Apparently, employee, who has retired, can be imposed with penalty of forfeiture from his pension or pensionary benefits only and no other punishment can be imposed on a retired employee. It is not forthcoming as to from which date to which date, there was increase in losses, for which action is taken against the petitioner. All these issues would require consideration. The impugned order, thus, can not be sustained and the same is set- aside. The Board would be at liberty to hear the petitioner and pass a fresh order in accordance with regulations applicable to the Board. Needless to observe that the Board can impose any penalty, which is authorised by the Rules and Regulations that too a person who has retired. The petitioner, if aggrieved against any punishment imposed, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1458 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: would be at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of appropriate forum to challenge the same. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. January 17 ,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE