Punjab-Haryana High Court
V.K Mohindru vs Punjab State Power Corporation ... on 9 March, 2022
CWP 6698 of 2021 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP 6698 of 2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 09.03.2022
V.K. Mohindru ...Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and another
... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH
Present : Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Abhilaksh Gaind, Advocate
for the respondents.
FATEH DEEP SINGH, J. (Oral)
The matter has been taken up through Video
conferencing on account of outbreak of pandemic COVID-19.
Petitioner V.K. Mohindru now retired
engineer-in-chief of then Punjab State Electricity Board (now
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, in short 'the
Corporation') was initially appointed as Apprentice Engineer on
01.03.1966. During his posting as Executive Engineer on
deputation with the U.T. Electricity Department Chandigarh on
1 of 8
the allegations of having committed misconduct, malfeasance
that commercial consumer had caused theft of electricity and
thereby caused huge financial loss running into crores of rupees
FIR No. RC-32/93-CHD dated 14.12.1993 under Sections 120-B
of Indian Penal Code and Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section
5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 under Section 39
and 39-A of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, Police Station,
SPE/CBI Chandigarh was got registered against the petitioner
alongwith others and thereafter he was found guilty and
convicted by the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI Court,
Chandigarh vide judgment and order dated 02.09.2016.
Though, it is not displaced that upon appeal before this Court
the order of conviction was stayed which is in this background
the petitioner has come up before this Court seeking release of
his pension and outstanding pensionary benefits due to him.
Besides raking up the pleas to the effect conviction
having been stayed by this Court in the appeal has put up the
plea that the Haryana Viduyat Prasaran Nigam Limited has
2 of 8
sought recovery and the loss on account of theft of electricity
and are trying to recover the amount though the electricity
department now Union Territory of Chandigarh have not initiated
any recovery proceedings against the principal accused
M/s Bhushan Industrial Company. The primary grouse that
being an employee he cannot be proceeded with on such a
accusation and that too in the absence of any departmental
inquiry or having violating the principle of 'audi alteram
partem' and, thus, not affording reasonable opportunity to show
cause and defend himself claiming that there is no grave or
serious act of misconduct/negligence against him. The petitioner
has sought to challenge withholding of his pension and
pensionary benefits as a consequence of passing of judgment
Annexure P-3 by the Special Judge terming it to be wholly illegal
and malafide.
The respondent/Corporation in their stand reiterated
that the FIR in question was got registered against the petitioner
and the principal accused M/s Bhushan Industrial Company for
3 of 8
fraud and theft of electricity. During the period 1985 to 1990
when the criminal proceedings were pending, the petitioner had
been paid provisional pension and leave encashment were also
released while other retirement benefits were withheld. It was
categoric stand of the respondents that to facilitate commission
of cheating and fraud the petitioner alongwith co-accused
hatched a criminal conspiracy during 1984 to 1990 and provided
independent electric energy through feeder D-3 by installing a
meter at BBMB Sub-Station Chanigarh and not at the premises
of the consumer and in which the petitioner was one of the
conspirators and thereby allowed higher load to the consumer
deliberately much more higher then the sanctioned load and,
therefore, resulted in pilferage of supply of energy to the
consumer and claimed that financial loss of around 19 crores
was caused between 1985 to 1990 and sought to justify the
claim of recovery for this financial loss to instrumentalities to the
State.
Heard Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate for the
4 of 8
petitioner and Mr. Abhilaksh Gaind, Advocate for the
respondents and perused the records.
Appreciating the submissions, the factum of
registration of an FIR, the suspension of sentence by this Court
vide order dated 05.10.2016 (Annexure P-4) and staying of the
sentence of conviction vide order dated 09.11.2020 (Annexure
P-12) are not at all displaced. No doubt it is there on the records
and is own stand of the respondents that process of deduction
of 50% cut in pension and recovery of Rs. 24,660/- has been
initiated vide order dated 02.04.2019 (Annexure P-7) and which
stood confirmed vide order dated 16.04.2019 (Annexure P-8)
but a material question arises if such a recovery could be
effected in the manner in which it is stated to be made. No
doubt the petitioner had retired on 31.12.2002 and during the
proceedings of the criminal trial he has been paid provisional
pension. Thus, the claim that there has been denial of
subsistence allowance ceases to hold good. To the specific
query of this Court if any show cause notice was ever issued to
5 of 8
the petitioner prior to the passing of the order of recovery and
the initiation of process of deduction and if the petitioner was
given an opportunity of hearing Shri Abhilaksh Gaind Advocate
for the respondents clearly accepts as to none and does not put
forth any excuse. The principle of administrative law enjoins of
giving of fair opportunity to a person before passing an order
adverse to his interest. It is with the aim and object that no one
is condemned unheard and he has reasonable opportunity to
meet the accusations against him and having afforded an
opportunity to him to put-forth his defence. No doubt this Court
is fully aware that a massive financial loss has accrued to the
department authorities as a consequence of connivance of the
consumer with the other officers including the petitioner for
which criminal act the petitioner alongwith other accused has
been found guilty and convicted but at the same time this Court
cannot wish away that the cannons of jurisprudence is thrown
off to the winds to ensure that there is due abidement of the law
and none of the parties is caused any material prejudice. It is
6 of 8
not a case where the petitioner has been left in a lurch though
he has been paid provisional pension throughout the trial and
allowing him full pension and pensionary benefits as per the
claim might result in an innocuous situation where the State in
spite of having suffered financial loss would not be able to
retrieve their loss. This Court in the fitness of the things in its
earnest urge to do justice to the parties holds quashing the
orders of deduction of pension and pensionary benefits
alongwith recovery at this juncture and at the same time
directing the respondents to release provisional pension as
earlier being done during the criminal trial and in the meanwhile
to issue show cause notice for this recovery and carry on
administrative action fully in accordance with law.
Keeping in view that the petitioner has already
retired and matter is also very old and the petitioner being a
senior citizen necessitates that the respondents accomplish the
task of this administrative act as per law at the earliest
preferably within one month from the date of receipt of copy of
7 of 8
this order.
In the light of the same the instant petition is
disposed off relegating the parties to appear before the
authorities of the respondents for further action.
Disposed off.
09.03. 2022 (FATEH DEEP SINGH)
amit rana JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
