C.W.P. No. 16483 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 16483 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 20.12.2010 Hawa Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. K.L. Dhingra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.D. Sharma, D.A.G, Haryana Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 *** PERMOD KOHLI, J. The petitioner retired from service of the respondent- Uttar Haryana Bijli Nigam, Panchkula as Junior Engineer on 31.03.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation. It is alleged that at the time of his retirement, no enquiry was pending against him and no charge sheet has been served to him. The respondents, however, vide the impugned order dated 10.09.2009 (Annexure P-1) ordered recovery of entire gratuity amounting to ` 3,93,222/-. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition with the further relief to release the gratuity amount illegally deducted with interest, from the date of retirement till the date of payment. In the reply filed, claim of the petitioner has been disputed. It is stated that while the petitioner was in service he was issued show cause notice vide memo No. 150/EP-7302 dated 26.11.2007 on the charge that the petitioner had drawn material from the store worth ` 9,67,058/- and did not submit the account etc despite reminders. Since the petitioner did C.W.P. No. 16483 of 2009 -2- not respond to the show cause notice and the reminders, the competent authority i.e Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, UHBVN, Karnal decided the issue vide office order No.18/P, dated 21.01.2009 by imposing punishment of recovery of an amount equal to stoppage of one annual increment without future effect. It is, however, alleged that at the time of retirement, a sum of ` 5,21,065/20 was outstanding against the petitioner under following heads:- 1 Recovery of parts and oil and oil shortage of damaged transformers for the period 10/2000 to 6/2007 `. 4,94,711/- 2 Recovery of parts and oil and oil shortage of damage transformer for the period 7/99 to 8/2000 `. 25,024.20 3 Non-verification of journey for the month of 11/2007 `. 619/- 4 Excess over amount against deposit estimate `. 711/- TOTAL `. 5,21,065.20 It is further stated that a notice dated 04.03.2009 was issued to the petitioner to clear his position. The petitioner submitted details of `. 4,91,929/- through Sub Divisional Officer for waiving off the shortage of missing parts and transfer oil of damaged transformers. Considering his reply an amount of `. 1,32,512/- was waived off vide office order no. 168 dated 29.05.2009. Another amount of `. 13,465/- was also waived off vide office order No. 191 dated 10.05.2010. Thus, the total outstanding amount against the petitioner remained `. 3,93,222/- which has been recovered from his gratuity by the respondent-Nigam. “It is agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in this petition is squarely covered by various judgments of this Court. In the case of S..S Arya vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Nigam, Panchkula and others, 2009(3) SCT 440, this Court issued following directions. C.W.P. No. 16483 of 2009 -3- “10. Consequently, the petition is allowed with costs and the charge-sheet dated 31.1.2007 (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are set aside, and the respondents are directed to release the amount of Rs.1,38,018.40 with interest @ 9% to the petitioner within a period of two months from today. Costs are assessed at Rs.10,000/-. Similar issue has been again considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2768 of 2009 (Dhan Singh vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others decided on 11.3.2010) wherein following observations have been made:- 2.The respondents are not entitled to make any such deduction unilaterally without actually determining the loss alleged to have been caused by the petitioner. Such a determination cannot be done without holding a proper enquiry and giving to the petitioner appropriate opportunity to join the enquiry to show cause that the deduction cannot be done. The impugned deduction made by the respondents is quashed and the respondents are directed to release the amount which is deducted namely Rs.1,36,156/- within a period of 4 weeks with interest at 9% per annum from the date when the amount became payable. Any constitution of an enquiry and its continuance could be only in terms of Rule 2.2 (b) of Punjab Civil Service Rules. 3. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms.” In view of the above circumstances, the impugned order dated 10.09.2009 (Annexure P-1) is liable to be quashed. C.W.P. No. 16483 of 2009 -4- This petition is accordingly allowed and order dated 10.09.2009 is hereby quashed and respondents are directed to refund amount of `. 3,93,222/- deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner within a period of 3 months failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. December 20, 2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) G.Arora JUDGE