CWP NO. 10672 OF 1998. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 10672 of 1998. Date of Decision: 24th April, 2008. Mohinder Singh ....Petitioner through Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondents through Mr. N.S.Panwar, Addl.AG, Punjab. 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? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL) In this Civil Writ Petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 15th June, 1998 (Annexure P-6) whereby a sum of Rs.65,099/- has been deducted from the arrears of his Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG). [2]. The facts may be noticed briefly. [3]. In the year 1994-95, the petitioner was working as Tehsil Welfare Officer and was posted at Kharar. On his promotion as District Welfare Officer, he was transferred and posted as such at Mansa on 27th January, 1995. He thereafter retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30th April, 1995. [4]. While the petitioner was posted as Tehsil Welfare Officer CWP NO. 10672 OF 1998. ::-2-:: at Kharar, a surprise checking was conducted by the Vigilance Department of the State Government on 6th July, 1994 in which 28,336 books were found undistributed during the period of the petitioner's posting. Out of these, 7,180 books were meant for the students of Scheduled Caste category and since those were not distributed and meanwhile the syllabus stood changed, those 7,180 books were rendered use-less. [5]. It appears that notwithstanding the report of the Vigilance Department to take action, its report kept lying under the carpet in the parent department of the petitioner, namely, Department of Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes. Meanwhile, the petitioner stood promoted and thereafter retired from service. Some of his retiral benefits were, however, withheld. [6]. On 16th April, 1996 (Annexure P-2) the District Welfare Officer, Roop Nagar informed the Directorate that 7180 books in question were “still lying in store in the office of the Welfare Officer due to change of Syllabus. Report is sent to you for information and necessary action”. [7]. Vide letter dated 11th April, 1997 (Annexure P-3), the Welfare Department appears to have informed the Vigilance Branch and Accounts Branch for a decision in the matter to be taken so that retiral benefits of the petitioner could be released. After internal correspondence between the Vigilance and Welfare Departments, the petitioner was slapped with an order dated 17th September, 1997 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Directorate of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes Welfare Department asking him to deposit a sum CWP NO. 10672 OF 1998. ::-3-:: of Rs.65,099/- towards the costs of the undistributed 7180 books. The aforesaid amount was finally ordered to be deducted from his DCRG vide the impugned order dated 14th May, 1998 (Annexure P6). [8]. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. [9]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. It can not indeed be disputed that “recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of orders” is one of the specific minor penalties provided under Rule 5(iii) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 ( for short “the Rules”). There can also not be a quarrel that the petitioner being a Government employee to whom the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India was very much available, could not be subjected to any punishment unless a reasonable opportunity of being heard was afforded to him by following the procedure under the Rules. Concededly, no charge-sheet was ever served nor the petitioner was heard before imposing the punishment of recovery of the alleged pecuniary loss caused by him to the department. [10]. The impugned recovery orders have been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice and, thus, can not sustain in law. [11]. Consequently, and for the reasons afore-stated, this writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders (Annexures P-5 and P-6) are hereby quashed. However, having regard to the conduct of the petitioner and the fact that he succeeds on technical ground, it is directed that in case the withheld amount of the gratuity is paid to the CWP NO. 10672 OF 1998. ::-4-:: petitioner within four months from the date of obtaining a certified copy of this order, no interest shall be paid to him, failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled to be paid interest @7% per annum. April 24, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE