IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.830 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: December 03 , 2010 Ranbir Singh Saran .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and another ....Respondents Present: Mr. K.C. Rajput , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, DAG, Haryana for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. A sum of Rs. 25,931/- has been deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner due to the fact that he had caused the loss to the Government of Haryana to this extent on account of his negligence and breach of order. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to challenge the said order. The petitioner was working as Executive Engineer D&W, Jind in the Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads). He was given an additional charge of Provincial Division, Hansi w.e.f. 19.03.1998. Much later on 18.02.2003, he was charge sheeted for imposing minor penalty under Rule 8 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal ) Rules, 1987. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet. He retired w.e.f. 30.04.2003. An amount of Rs. 26,892/- was withheld from his gratuity due to pendency of the charge sheet so as to affect recovery from him, if required. It is stated that Engineer-in-Chief dropped the charges Civil Writ Petition No.830 of 2010 -2- against Sh. D.N. Bhayana, who was the prime accused on 21.03.2005. Engineer-in-Chief also recommended to the Government to drop the charge sheet against the petitioner vide letter dated 08.07.2005(Annexure P-4). Another communication was addressed to the Government for dropping the charges on 22.03.2005 but ultimately the impugned order (Annexure P-7) directing recovery of Rs. 25,931/- was passed on 21.12.2008. The stand in the reply is that the petitioner was given due opportunity to represent and, accordingly, the punishment of recovery was passed as he was responsible for the loss to the Government. Perusal of Annexure P-7 would show that the reply filed by the petitioner had not been properly considered. The plea of the petitioner was that the construction took place before he joined the place. This fact does not appear to be in dispute as can be noticed from the impugned order, Annexure P-7. It is recorded in the order that the petitioner had only disputed that the work of construction took place before he joined the place and even if one was to agree with him, he had failed to point out the lapses by his predecessors. Thus, the reason and cause to take action is not the loss caused but the petitioner not reporting the defect. Simply, because the petitioner had not pointed the lapses, cannot lead to direct the recovery from the petitioner of the loss, if any caused. This has also to be viewed in the background that the main accused was let off as is averred in the petition. To recover the loss one has to show that the loss is caused by the person concerned. In this case, even if there was a loss, it could not be attributed to the petitioner in any manner. The Civil Writ Petition No.830 of 2010 -3- petitioner is not even remotely connected with the loss. To recover the loss, it must be shown that it has been caused by some wrong act or negligence and the same has to be shown as natural and a reasonable consequences of the act. It is not enough to show merely that the loss was facilitated or made possible by the act of the delinquent employee. Even if the final payment was made during the tenure of the petitioner, he cannot be considered responsible for any wrongful act or negligence to direct recovery of the same from him. The Government has directed to recover the loss from the amount of his gratuity which is unfair. The same is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Directions are issued to the respondents to release the amount within a period of one month from today. December 03, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE