IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15900 of 2011 Date of Decision: August 29, 2011 Azad Singh Dalal ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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.Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was accused of claiming house rent allowance by showing his stay at Sonepat, whereas he was going up and down to Rohtak. He, thus, claimed house rent of ` 42,665/-. The petitioner was further accused of misusing the Government money and misappropriating in purchasing the shading net. Third charge against the petitioner was for embezzling an amount of `2,59,875/- for purchasing tissue culture banana plants at the rate of `16.10 paise instead of `10/- and he purchased more than 10,000 plants in the year 2003-04. Yet another charge was for embezzling an amount of `37,500/- for purchasing rose plants at the rate of ` 5/- instead of `2.50 paise from Indira Nursery, Jatheri in the year 2003-04. Next charge against the petitioner was for embezzling the Government amount of `20,000/- by not taking farmers on tour instead taking his own staff and own family members on tour in the year 2002-03. Yet another charge of embezzling of amount of `6475/- by showing the Civil Writ Petition No.15900 of 2011 : 2 : bogus tour in the year 2003-04 was made against the petitioner. For these allegations, Enquiry Officer was detailed, who held the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer held the charges partly/fully proved, on the basis which the Enquiry Officer though had come to the conclusion that no loss was caused. The petitioner in the meanwhile had retired and accordingly recovery of 40% of the total amount of `2,59,875/- has been ordered to be recovered from his gratuity. This was also after issuance of a show cause notice to the petitioner. The only ground raised before me is that once there was no loss, recovery could not have been ordered from the gratuity of the petitioner. Considering the nature of allegations made against the petitioner and the fact that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is against him, the order directing recovery would not call for any interference. Dismissed. August 29, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE