Civil Writ Petition No. 388 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 388 of 2009 Date of decision: 7.10.2009 R.K. Lohan ...petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ...respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH ***** Present: Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. This order will dispose of two Civil Writ Petition Nos. 388 and 409 of 2009. The petitioner is the same, who is aggrieved against the order directing recovery against him of different amount after his retirement on the basis of charge sheets, which were served to him on the date of his retirement. The order passed on the basis of first charge sheet is subject matter of challenge in CWP No. 388 of 2009. This charge sheet was served on him on 31.8.2004 under Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter called, 'the rules'). That was the date, when the petitioner was to retire from service. The petitioner submitted his reply. His grievance is that without considering his reply, the petitioner has been held responsible for the lapses and has been punished with the order directing recovery of Rs. 2.000/-. In CWP Civil Writ Petition No. 388 of 2009 2 No. 409 of 2009, challenge is to the recovery of an amount of Rs. 39,603/- in an identical manner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the recoveries could not have been imposed as punishments, especially so, when in the inquiry held, the petitioner has not been held responsible or found guilty in any manner. The counsel further contends that no averment or allegation of causing loss is made in the charge sheet. As per the counsel, direction could be issued only if loss is alleged or proved for recovering the amount. A perusal of the charge sheet would show that the petitioner while being posted as an Executive Engineer has got certain work conducted without any administrative sanction and without getting approval of estimates. It is further alleged that no funds were placed at the disposal of Executive Engineer, which was against administrative requirement. Allegation further is that the petitioner failed to make efforts to get the matter regularised. Thus it is seen that the lapses alleged against the petitioner are for having got the work conducted without getting administrative approval and not getting it regularised. No allegation of causing loss is made in the charge sheet. In the reply filed, respondents have tried to justify the action against the petitioner and so also the punishment awarded to him. Reference is made to number of other allegations made against the petitioner. It is stated that the charge sheet was served to the petitioner and on receipt of reply, the impugned order has been passed. The orders that can be passed in respect of an employee, who has been already retired is also regulated by the provisions of Civil Writ Petition No. 388 of 2009 3 the rules. Though legally it may be permissible to continue the proceeding against a person even after the retirement but the punishments which can be awarded to the retired employees are regulated by the rules and regulations. The action of the respondents to direct recovery of this amount on the basis of some instructions, which have been placed before me today is not sustainable. It is stated that the Government has a right to effect recovery from the gratuity under the rule and also from the pension under Rule 2.2 (b). The difference between the punishment that can be awarded or the recovery, which can be effected may need to be appreciated here. It may be true that certain recoveries which are due against the petitioner could be recovered from pension and gratuity but it would not mean that recoveries can be imposed as punishment and thus effected. The recovery as directed by way of punishment apparently is not relatable to any of the provisions of the Act or the rules of service regulations. Even otherwise, no loss is alleged in the charge sheet for which any recovery could have been directed. Even in such cases where loss is alleged in the charge sheet, the recovery could also be ordered, in case such losses are proved. It appears that the order directing recovery has been made only after serving charge sheet and obtaining reply. Apparently, the order of punishment as made is not permissible under law. The same is set aside. The case would go back to the competent authority to reconsider and re-decide the same. The respondents would be at liberty to hold the proceeding against the petitioner in accordance Civil Writ Petition No. 388 of 2009 4 with law and pass any appropriate order which can be made under law or the rules or regulations. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. October 07, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE