Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kesri Dass Rohilla vs The Chairman, Haryana Vidyut Prasaran ... on 11 March, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034084
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:034084
CWP-15675-1999(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
216 CWP-15675-1999(O&M)
Date of Decision: 11.03.2024
Kesri Dass Rohilla
..... Petitioner
Versus
The Chairman, Haryana Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Limited & ors.
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate, for
Mr. T.C. Dhanwal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Nikita Goel, Advocate,
for the respondents.
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to
quash order dated 09.04.1999 (Annexure P-9) and also an appropriate writ,
order or direction especially in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to release pensionary benefits to the petitioner from the date of his
retirement i.e. 31.01.1999 with 18% interest on all retiral benefits.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was working as Junior Engineer in the respondent-Corporation and he
retired on 31.01.1999 on attaining the age of superannuation. He submitted that
while he was working in the aforesaid office, chargesheet was issued to him
vide Annexure P-1 on the ground that he had released some connections, which
were unjustified for Rs.12,253/- because he did not properly release the same.
While releasing the connections, he had put the Board to loss for Rs.12,253/- i.e
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034084
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:034084
CWP-15675-1999(O&M) -2-
unjustified amount. He submitted that thereafter since proposal was for
imposition of a minor penalty and he had replied to the aforesaid charges vide
Annexure P-3 and while considering the reply filed by the petitioner,
punishment order was imposed upon the petitioner for minor penalty vide
Annexure P-4, dated 15.07.1998 by which it was directed for stopping of one
increment without future effect. He submitted that after the imposition of the
aforesaid penalty, the same was not implemented by the respondent-Board,
particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner was due to retire after few
months and consequently on 20.01.1999 about 10 days prior to the retirement of
the petitioner, the aforesaid order of punishment was withdrawn by the Nigam
vide order 20.01.1999 (Annexure P-6) in which it was so directed that the
punishment order dated 15.07.1998 (Annexure P-4) has been reviewed and it
has been decided to withdraw the punishment order since the same could not be
given effect. However, it was decided to recover the said loss and taken
separately. He further submitted that on the same date i.e. 20.01.1999 vide
Annexure P-5, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why the
recovery of aforesaid amount of Rs.12,253/- be not recovered from him because
of the aforesaid negligence. Learned counsel submitted that once a punishment
order has been inflicted upon the petitioner and the same has been withdrawn
by the Nigam then on the same date, a separate notice for the same cause of
action would not have been issued to the petitioner since it was double
jeopardy. He submitted that once there is a punishment order against the
petitioner and the Nigam takes a decision to withdraw the same, for any reason
whatsoever, then on the same cause of action second notice could not have
been issued. He further submitted that thereafter, vide Annexure P-9, after the
retirement of the petitioner, an order dated 09.04.1999 was passed for recovery
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034084
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:034084
CWP-15675-1999(O&M) -3-
of an amount of Rs.12,253/- from the petitioner. He submitted that the
aforesaid show cause notice as well as the impugned order Annexure P-9 is
liable to be set aside and quashed since on the same cause of action second
notice could not have been issued and punishment order could not have been
passed as a consequence of the same.
3. Learned counsel also submitted that after the petitioner's
retirement on 31.01.1999, the aforesaid impugned order Annexure P-9 was
passed on 09.04.1999. The pensionary benefits/retiral benefits were not
released to the petitioner and it was thereafter only in March, 2000 i.e. after
about one year that the pensionary benefits have been released and Rs.12,253/-
has been recovered from the petitioner. He has submitted that he has two
grievances to make. Firstly, the aforesaid order of punishment is liable to be
quashed for the aforesaid reasons and secondly even otherwise also the
aforesaid punishment order is of April 1999, whereas the pensionary benefits
have been released to the petitioner in March 2000 and the aforesaid amount of
Rs.12,253/- was recovered and there was no justification in delaying the
pensionary benefits to the petitioner and therefore, direction may be issued to
refund the aforesaid amount of Rs.12,253/- to the petitioner because the same
was recovered in pursuance of an order which is an illegal order (Annexure P-9)
and secondly, he is entitled for the grant of interest on the delayed payment of
pensionary benefits.
4. He also submitted that the respondents have not even cared
to file reply to the present petition despite the fact that the writ petition is of the
year 1999 and 24 years have elapsed after filing of the present petition. Learned
counsel also referred to an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in
this case on 20.07.2001, wherein the counsel for the respondents had sought
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034084
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:034084
CWP-15675-1999(O&M) -4-
time to file reply despite the fact that earlier also the Nigam was granted time
and it was so directed that the reply be filed in the meantime, with a copy to the
counsel for the petitioner, but subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs to be
deposited with the Legal Aid Services Authority, Haryana and the receipt be
produced in the Court. He submitted that thereafter, neither the reply was filed
nor any receipt was so furnished as directed by this Court. He has submitted
that in this way the petitioner has been deprived of not only the amount which
has been illegally recovered from the petitioner in pursuance of an illegal order
but also his retiral benefits have been delayed at the instance of the respondents.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has
stated that so far as the disbursal of the retrial benefits of the petitioner is
concerned, the same was done in March, 2000. She submitted that so far as the
impugned order Annexure P-9 is concerned, whereby the punishment order was
passed against the petitioner for stoppage of one increment with cumulative
effect, since the same could not be implemented and petitioner was scheduled to
retire on 31.01.1999, the order was withdrawn and the fresh notice was issued
in accordance with law and therefore, no fault can be found in the aforesaid
impugned order (Annexure P-9). So far as the deposit of the aforesaid costs of
Rs.5000/- is concerned, she has expressed that she does not have the knowledge
of the same since she was not counsel at that point of time. So far as the filing
of the reply is concerned, she expressed that she has no knowledge of the same.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. From the perusal of the paper book, it can be seen that no
reply has been filed till date. Apart from the above, even no costs have been
deposited till date as there is no receipt of the same on record in this regard.
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034084
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:034084
CWP-15675-1999(O&M) -5-
8. The grievance of the petitioner is two-fold. Firstly, amount
of Rs.12,253/- has been recovered from the petitioner in pursuance of the
impugned order (Annexure P-9), which was an illegal order and second
grievance is that after his retirement and after even passing of order (Annexure
P-9) in April, 1999, the retiral benefits of the petitioner were delayed and for the
delay of about one year, he is also entitled for the grant of retiral benefits
9. So far as the first grievance of the petitioner is concerned, a
perusal of first punishment order dated 15.07.1998 would show that after
issuance of show cause notice and after the reply was filed by the petitioner,
punishment was inflicted upon him although in the nature of minor punishment
for stopping of one increment without cumulative effect but thereafter, vide
Annexure P-6, the aforesaid order was withdrawn on 20.01.1999, which was
just about 10 days before the retirement of the petitioner and in this way, the
punishment order which was inflicted upon the petitioner after considering his
reply and in a due course and by following a proper procedure, was withdrawn
by the Nigam themselves. However, on the same date, another show cause
notice was issued on the same cause of action by realizing the mistake that
earlier the punishment order cannot be implemented because of retirement of
the petitioner after few months and now on the same cause of action notice was
given as to why a penalty of recovery of Rs.12,253/- be not inflicted upon the
petitioner. However, a perusal of the earlier chargesheet/show cause notice
(Annexure P-1) would make it clear that in that show cause as well it was so
alleged that there was a loss of Rs.12,253/- to the Nigam. Once the aforesaid
amount pertaining to the alleged loss was the subject matter of the first show
cause notice/allegations of the charges in the charge sheet and no order has been
passed on the recovery despite the allegations regarding the same then for the
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034084
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:034084
CWP-15675-1999(O&M) -6-
second time on the same cause of action and on the same set of allegations, no
second punishment order could have been passed. Once the Nigam has come to
the conclusion and passed a punishment order of stoppage of increment and the
same stands withdrawn by way of a conscious decision vide order Annexure P-
6, then on the same cause of action, second show cause notice was not
maintainable and therefore, the impugned order (Annexure P-9) for recovery of
Rs.12253/- is nonest and is liable to be set aside.
10. In consequence of the aforesaid punishment order, as per
learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid amount was recovered from the
petitioner and therefore, such recovery was also bad in law. Therefore, the
respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.12,253/- to the petitioner
along with interest @ 6% per annum (simple) to be paid within a period of 3
months from today.
11. So far as the second grievance of the petitioner with regard
to delay in retiral benefits is concerned, Annexure P-9 would show that the
same was passed on 09.04.1999 after about three months of the retirement of
the petitioner. But as per the learned counsel for the respondents, retiral
benefits have been paid in the month of March, 2000 and therefore, there is a
delay with regard to the retiral benefits and for this, there is no justification.
During the course of arguments, she also submitted that after retirement of the
petitioner, there was another amount of Rs.7,618/- regarding which a separate
notice was issued to the petitioner on 25.06.1998 (Annexure P-11) with regard
to the allegation of shortage of material and that was also one of the reason for
delay in the disbursal of the retiral amount. However, a perusal of the aforesaid
Annexure P-11 would show that the same is in the nature of a notice which was
issued to the petitioner on 25.06.1998 i.e. about seven months prior to the
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034084
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:034084
CWP-15675-1999(O&M) -7-
retirement of the petitioner. On specific query being raised to the counsel for
the respondents, as to whether any specific order was passed for the recovery of
Rs.7,618/- from the petitioner or not, to which she stated that there is nothing on
the record to show the same. Even otherwise also it appears that even for that
recovery as well no enquiry has been conducted.
12. Therefore, from the aforesaid, it is very clear that as far as
the aforesaid notice pertaining to the recovery of Rs.7,618/- is concerned, no
inquiry has been conducted nor any order has been passed for the aforesaid
recovery in accordance with law and even otherwise also the aforesaid notice is
prior to the retirement of the petitioner and therefore, that could not constitute a
ground for delaying the retiral benefits. It has also been brought to the notice of
this Court by learned counsel for the respondents that the aforesaid amount of
Rs.7,618/- has also been recovered from the retiral benefits of the petitioner.
Since the aforesaid recovery was also bad in law because there is no order of
any competent authority on record nor any inquiry has been conducted, the
same could not have been recovered, specially in view of the judgment of this
Court in CWP No.8095 of 2005, titled Ram Narain Dua Vs. Dakshin
Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & ors. Therefore, it is also directed that the
respondents shall refund the amount of Rs.7,618/- to the petitioner along with
interest @ 6% per annum (simple) within a period of three months from today.
So far as the delay in retiral benefits is concerned, no justification has come
from the counsel for the respondents with regard to the delay in the retiral
benefits except for the fact that in the month of April the impugned order
Annexure P-9 was passed. Therefore, the petitioner shall be entitled for grant
of interest from the month of May, 1999 till the actual date of disbursement
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034084
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:034084
CWP-15675-1999(O&M) -8-
which shall also be paid to the petitioner along with interest @ 6% per annum
(simple) within a period of three months from today.
13. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed.
11.03.2024 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
monika JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
2. Whether reportable: Yes/No
8 of 8
