C.W.P. No. 10049 of 2011 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 10049 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: 16.09.2011 Kulwant Singh & another ..........Petitioners Versus Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Ms. Harpinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. I.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the respondents. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing of letter dated 16.2.2011 (Annexure P-1) issued by Senior District Manager, Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Limited, Tarn Taran, vide which, he has been directed to deposit an amount of ` 5,93,272/- regarding shortage of 768 bags weighing 384.00 quintal. The impugned letter has been challenged on the ground that the same has been issued by the authority, who is neither the disciplinary authority nor competent authority to effect any recovery from the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that before effecting the recovery neither any opportunity of hearing nor any chargesheet has been given to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the order by this Court in C.W.P. No. 194 of 2009 titled as Sukhchain Singh Versus The Punjab Agro Foodgrains and others decided on 25.10.2010 by this Court, wherein, similar order of recovery against the petitioners was set aside on the ground that neither any show C.W.P. No. 10049 of 2011 (2) cause notice was issued to the petitioners nor any opportunity of hearing was given to them. The relevant part of the said order is reproduced as under:- “Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that since the impugned order has serious civil consequences, the petitioner(s) ought to have been heard before passing the same. The observance of principles of natural justice is sine qua non for taking such a punitive action. The writ petition is accordingly allowed; the impugned order dated 1.10.2008 (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner and pass an appropriate order(s) after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner(s) and in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Dasti.” Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the case of the petitioners is also on the same footing and the same decision has also been taken in C.W.P. No. 2798 of 2010 decided on 6.4.2011. Learned counsel for the respondents has not controverted the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the orders passed in C.W.P. Nos. 194 of 2009 and 2978 of 2010. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also the decision in C.W.P. Nos. 194 of 2009 and 2978 of 2010, the present petition is allowed and impugned letter dated 16.2.2011 (Annexure P-1) is quashed. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to issue a show cause notice to the petitioners and to pass appropriate order after giving opportunity of hearing to them in accordance with law. September 16, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE C.W.P. No. 10049 of 2011 (3)