Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sarup Chand vs State Of Punjab And Others on 12 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147824
CWP-26681-2021 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
236 CWP-26681-2021
Date of Decision: 12.11.2024
Sarup Chand ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. R.S. Dadwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. S.S. Brar, Advocate
for respondents No.2 and 3.
Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate
for respondents No.4 to 6.
*****
NAMIT KUMAR, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition impugning the action
of the respondents whereby demand has been raised from the petitioner for
recovering an amount of Rs.1,35,118/- on account of alleged excess payment
of pension for the period from January 2006 to July 2020.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the
demand notice dated 23.07.2020 (Annexure P-2) was issued to the petitioner
seeking recovery of Rs.1,35,118/- and the petitioner was given an
opportunity to submit response within 15 days from the date of receipt of the
said demand notice, to which the petitioner submitted reply dated
17.08.2020 (Annexure P-3), but, however, without passing any specific
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147824
order of recovery,and by completing the necessary formalities and adhering
to the principles of natural justice, and grant of opportunity of personal
hearing, the bank had started recovery of Rs.4210/- per month from
27.08.2020.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-bank submits
that after receipt of representation of the petitioner, order dated 15.09.2020
(Annexure R-5/4) was passed. He could not refute the fact that no
opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner while passing
the order dated 15.09.2020 and the bank started recovery even before
passing of the order dated 15.09.2020. In such situtation, it can be said that
bank has taken unilateral decision and the purpose of seeking reply from the
petitioner was defeated and wasted, and thus, the action of the respondents
in effecting recovery of Rs.1,35,118/- is not legal and justifiable.
4. Reliance is placed upon the judgment dated 25.01.2019 passed
by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of 'Shanti Devi Vs. State of
Punjab and others' and the relevant portion of the same is re-produced as
under:-
"6. It is a settled principle of law that any order which causes
prejudice to a person, the rules of nature justice shall be followed.
No unilateral decision can be taken even if one party thinks that
the mistake is being rectified. In the present case, the recovery to
the tune of `30,315/- was being made from the petitioner and that
too without even informing her or giving the reasons for the same.
Once, it has been admitted that the excess payment was made, the
same could not have been recovered without any show cause
notice to the petitioner and after considering the reply, if any,
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147824
clarifying the position.
7. Furthermore, there is no order even passed by the respondents
for effecting the recovery from the petitioner. The respondents on
their own decided to rectify their mistake by withdrawing the
amount by putting a cut on the pension of the petitioner. This
action of the respondents is not supported by any law rather the
same is contrary to the settled principle of law. Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the case of Chamoli District Cooperative Bank
Limited through its Secretary/ Mahaprandhak and another Vs.
Raghunath Singh Rana and others, 2016(12) SCC 204, has held
that even where there are no specific statutory rules regarding the
observance of the rules of natural justice, still, it is incumbent that
the concerned person is given due opportunity of hearing before
passing any order, which is causing prejudice to him/her. The
relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under :-
"19. The compliance of natural justice in
domestic/disciplinary inquiry is necessary has long been
established. This Court has held that even there are no
specific statutory rule requiring observance of natural
justice, the compliance of natural justice is necessary.
Certain ingredients have been held to be constituting
integral part of holding of an inquiry. The Apex Court in
Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Their
Workmen reported in (1964) 3 SCR 616 has laid down
following:-
"... An enquiry cannot be said to have been properly held
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147824
unless, (i) the employee proceeded against has been
informed clearly of the charges levelled against him, (ii) the
witnesses are examined - ordinarily in the presence of the
employee - in respect of the charges, (iii) the employee is
given a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, (iv) he
is given a fair opportunity to examine witnesses including
himself in his defence if he so wishes on any relevant
matter, and (v) the inquiry officer records his findings with
reasons for the same in his report."
8. Even Division Bench of this Court while deciding CWP No.
3756 of 1986, decided on 22.09.1993, titled as Lekhu Singh Vs.
The Punjab SC Land Development & Finance Corporation,
Chandigarh, has held that the concept of the opportunity is a
basic requirement which has to be extended to every action which
has adverse civil or penal consequence. The relevant portion of
the said judgment is as under :-
"6. One of the basic principles of natural justice is 'hear the
other side'. Initially judicial opinion was that grant of an
opportunity was required only while passing a judicial
order or quasi-judicial order and that in a purely
administrative function/order, opportunity had no role to
play. However, with the efflux of time, the grant of an
opportunity has become a requirement of law even for a
purely administrative act. Still further the concept of
opportunity being a basic requirement has been extended to
every action which has adverse civil or penal
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147824
consequences. Alteration of seniority and reversion have
been held to have civil consequences and consequently,
alteraction of seniority or reversion from a given rank
without the grant of an opportunity have been held to be
vitiated, being violative of basic principles of natural
justice."
9. In view of the above, the action of the respondents in recovering
the amount of `30,315/- from the pension of the petitioner is set-
aside. The respondents are directed to refund the said amount to
the petitioner within a period of two months from the receipt of the
copy of this order. Thus, the present writ petition stands allowed.
10. However, the respondents are given liberty to proceed
according to rules and after following the due process of law
including the issuance of show cause notice to the petitioner, in
case they found that the petitioner has been paid excess amount
and the said excess amount can be recovered as per settled
principle of law".
5. In this view of the matter, the action of the respondents in
effecting recovery from the petitioner without complying with the principles
of natural justice is held to be illegal and arbitrary and accordingly, demand
notice dated 23.07.2020 (Annexure P-2) is quashed and set aside. However,
liberty is granted to the respondents-bank, if they intend to proceed further in
the matter, they may first comply with the principles of natural justice by
giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of
three months from today, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order. Till the passing of the fresh order, no recovery shall be effected from
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147824
the pension of the petitioner. It is also made clear that a fresh decision
which will taken by the concerned authority shall settle whether the amount
is to be retained by the bank or to be paid to the petitioner. The amount of
Rs.87,168/- so retained by the bank shall lie with the bank and to be adjusted
after the necessary exercise is carried out.
6. With these observations, the present petition is disposed of.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
12.11.2024 JUDGE
D.Bansal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
