C.W.P. No.1318 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.1318 of 2009 Date of Decision: 08.01.2010 Ram Phal ....Petitioner Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner complains of withholding of his retiral benefits on the ground that the petitioner had been guilty of breakage/shortage of some transformers and for cost of transformer oil. The submission of the learned counsel is that the Rules provide for right of recovery upto 5% for breakage/shortage for cost of transformer and 20% of the total cost of the transformer oil. It appears that a notice had been issued on 30.12.2005 to the petitioner to show cause as to why a recovery of Rs.18,330/- shall not be made for missing of transformer oil/parts. The contention of the petitioner is that subsequent to the notice, C.W.P. No.1318 of 2009 -2- no action had been taken and no enquiry had been constituted. He was allowed to retire on 31.12.2007. The contention is that if the liability had not been fixed on him consequent upon an enquiry, the petitioner was entitled to obtain the retiral benefits without stopping the same but to any deduction. 2. The written statement of respondent Nos.1 to 6 only makes out the point that a notice had been issued and it is nowhere stated that any enquiry was constituted or any finding was recorded that the petitoiner was bound to make the payment. It has also been stated that the SDO, S/U, S. Division, Gohana had already submitted a report to write off the shortage but the XEN, Operation Division, Gohana had not written it off in view of the stand taken in the show cause notice issued on 30.12.2005. 3. In my view, a mere service of notice that did not culminate in an enquiry or a finding that the petitioner was liable for such a sum, cannot be a justifiable cause to withhold the retiral benefits. If the rules permit the constitution of an enquiry even subsequent to the superannuation, the respondents will be at liberty to take such action and establish the guilt of the petitioner. In the meanwhile, it is impermissible for the respondents to withhold the payment of retiral benefits and the deduction made to the extent of Rs.51,408/- cannot be done. The amount shall be paid with interest @9% from 31.12.2007 to the date of payment. Suitable proceedings shall be issued within a period of four weeks C.W.P. No.1318 of 2009 -3- from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 4. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 08, 2010 Pankaj*