Regular Second Appeal No. 1902 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1902 of 2009. (O&M) Date of Decision: 6.5.2009 *** Managing Director, Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. .. Appellants VS. Shish Ram & Anr. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. R.S. Badhran, Advocate for the appellants. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The defendant-appellants are challenging the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below by virtue of which the sanction order and memorandum dated 27.12.2005, withholding the amount of Rs.75072/- of the plaintiff have been held illegal and by setting aside the same they have been directed to pay the aforesaid amount of gratuity to the plaintiff- respondent No.1 along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of retirement i.e. 30.6.2005 till realization of the amount. They have also been burdened with interest @ 8% on the delayed payment of Rs.11,799/-. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the paper book carefully. The factual aspect of the matter is not in dispute. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff was charge-sheeted for having embezzled the amount of Rs.75072/-. Although in the departmental enquiry vide order dated 26.9.2001 he was held guilty and punishment of stoppage of two increments permanently along with recovery of aforesaid amount was imposed upon him, but on an appeal, the competent authority set aside the same and remanded the matter for conducting fresh enquiry. It is also not in Regular Second Appeal No. 1902 of 2009 2 dispute that vide order dated 6.8.2004 (Ex.PW1/D) the charges against the plaintiff were dropped by the Competent Authority. There is nothing on record which is suggestive of the fact that the said order was not accepted by the Department or they ever challenged the said order of the Competent Authority. The plaintiff stood retired from the service on 30.6.2005. It is also not in dispute that the gratuity amounting to Rs.86871/- was with-held by the Department and pursuant to sanction order dated 27.12.2005, after deducting an amount of Rs.75072/-, the plaintiff was paid the remaining amount of Rs.11799/-. Surprisingly, the sanction order dated 27.12.2005 was passed on the basis of some alleged de-novo enquiry conducted against the plaintiff, but nothing was produced by the Department-appellant to show as to what prompted them to initiate de-novo enquiry against the plaintiff, whereas in an earlier enquiry the plaintiff was exonerated of the charges and it was not the case of the Department that the said enquiry report was not accepted by it. Even nothing has come on record to show that the plaintiff was ever joined in that alleged enquiry conducted de-novo, which otherwise was prohibited under law. The plea that the suit for recovery should have been filed, is not tenable since the plaintiff has questioned the legality of the sanction order and memorandum dated 27.12.2005, which were made the basis of the alleged deduction, therefore, the suit for declaration for declaring the impugned sanction order and memorandum with entitlement of the plaintiff to have the amount of gratuity with interest from the Department, was very much maintainable. There are concurrent findings in this regard. Nothing has been shown to take a contrary view. No substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for admission of appeal, is made out. The appeal is wholly without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 6,2009 Jiten