IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13782 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.03.2010 Hukam Chand ….Petitioner versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ------ Present: Mr.Balkar Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Praveen Gupta, Advocate, for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for respondents 1 to 4. ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Yes. ----- K.Kannan, J (Oral) CM No.20298 of 2009 Application is allowed, as prayed for. Written statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 is taken on record. Civil Writ Petition No.13782 of 2009 1. The petitioner challenges the recovery made from the retiral dues contending that the amount which is sought to be recovered purporting to be the loss caused by the transformer and transformer oil, had been assessed without any form of enquiry and that such recovery was not tenable. The learned counsel appearing for the Electricity Board Civil Writ Petition No.13782 of 2009 (O&M) - 2 - would contend that the petitioner was bound to furnish details even during his service and the same having been not done, the amount, which was assessed as the loss caused by the petitioner, was bound to be recovered from the petitioner. 2. The right of recovery from the retiral benefits to the extent of loss itself is not in question. The issue is whether such a deduction would be possible by a unilateral decision without allowing the petitioner to participate to show cause as to how the amount claimed for recovery was not tenable. The onus shall always be only on the Board which seeks to make the deduction to prove that such loss was caused to the petitioner and that the petitioner had violated any terms of employment that resulted in such loss. The recovery has been made admittedly without setting up any enquiry and hence there is no basis for the amount determined as liable by the petitioner. The act of recovery is, therefore, quashed. The petitioner shall be paid the amount which is recovered from his retiral dues within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order with interest at 7.5%. This shall be however subject to any other proceeding that the respondents could initiate if the loss is proved after duly putting the petitioner on notice of such an action and if it is permissible under law. Subject to this liberty, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be however no directions as to costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 25.03.2010 sanjeev