Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anil Kumar Nandwani vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. ... on 24 April, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056467
2024:PHHC:056467
[105+228] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CM-21429-CWP-2023 in/and
CWP-26958-2019
Date of Decision : 24.04.2024
Anil Kumar Nandwani ...Petitioner
versus
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam
Ltd., Panchkula and others ....Respondents
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present : Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Aditi Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. C.S. Bakshi, Advocate
for the applicants-respondents.
***
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)
CM-21429-CWP-2023
This is an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with
Section 151 of CPC, 1908 by the respondent for amendment of the
written statement dated 15.10.2022.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed. Amended written statement alongwith Annexure R-1 is taken
on record.
CWP-26958-2019
[1] The present writ petition has been filed under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056467
2024:PHHC:056467
CM-21429-CWP-2023 in/and -2-
CWP-26958-2019
certiorari for quashing/setting aside the illegal and arbitrary action of the
respondents to the extent of deducting of Rs.3,18,401/- from the retiral
benefits (leave encashment) of the petitioner vide its office Memo
No.Ch-16/EG-19 dated 08.08.2018 (Annexure P-1) with a further prayer
for directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.3,18,401/- (leave
encashment) in favour of petitioner with 18% market interest with
consequential relief which was deducted illegally, arbitrarily, wrongly
from the leave encashment of the petitioner.
[2] Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner was working as Junior Engineer with the
respondent-Corporation and he retired on 31.08.2018. He submitted that
while he was in service there was neither any enquiry nor any chargesheet
nor any criminal case against the petitioner and after the retirement when
the retiral benefits were to be disbursed to the petitioner, the respondents
deducted/recovered an amount of Rs.3,18,401/- from the retiral benefits of
the petitioner on account of stolen material AB Cable drawn from Central
Store, Panipat. In this regard, he referred to Annexure P-1, which was a
letter written by the Executive Engineer, City Division, UHBVN, Panipat
to the Executive Engineer, M&P Division, UHBVN, Karnal. He
submitted that the aforesaid deduction from the retiral benefits of the
petitioner was without the authority of law in view of the fact that there is
no order of punishment or no enquiry etc. against the petitioner and the
mere fact that no notice was issued to the petitioner at that time when he
was in service cannot fasten any liability in the absence of any order from
competent authority after following due procedure.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056467
2024:PHHC:056467
CM-21429-CWP-2023 in/and -3-
CWP-26958-2019
[3] Learned counsel also referred to a judgment of a Division
Bench of this Court in 'Ashok Kumar Dhamija versus Dakshin Haryana
Bijli Nigam Limited and others', CWP No.7949 of 2005, decided on
21.09.2006 (Annexure P-8) in this regard.
[4] On the other hand, Ms. Aditi Sharma, Advocate appearing
on behalf of the respondents submitted that as per the amended reply
filed by the respondents, admittedly, there was no chargesheet or any
enquiry against the petitioner at any point of time.
[5] I have heard learned counsels for the parties.
[6] It is a case where the facts are not in dispute and even as per
the respondents, there was no enquiry or notice or any disciplinary
proceedings was issued against the petitioner. After his retirement, an
amount of Rs.3,18,401/- was deducted from his pensionary benefits. It is
a settled law that in case any recovery is to be made from the retiral
benefits, then the same can only be done with the authority of law and by
following the due procedure. Admittedly, there was no chargesheet or
any proceedings against the petitioner at any point of time. Therefore, it
is crystal clear that the recovery from the petitioner on account of stolen
material AB Cable drawn from Central Store, Panipat was bad in law and
the same could not have been recovered.
[7] In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The
respondents are directed to pay the petitioner the aforesaid amount of
Rs.3,18,401/- within a period of 03 months from today along with
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056467
2024:PHHC:056467
CM-21429-CWP-2023 in/and -4-
CWP-26958-2019
interest @6% per annum. In case, the aforesaid amount is not paid to the
petitioner within a period of 03 months from today, then he shall be
entitled for a future rate of interest @ 9% per annum.
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
JUDGE
24.04.2024
'Rajneesh'
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
