Baljeet Singh vs Uhbvnl And Others on 7 August, 2008

CWP No.1714 of 2008                                              1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH.
                              Civil Writ Petition No.1714 of 2008

                                         Date of decision: 7.8.2008



Baljeet Singh

                                                      -----Petitioner

                                Vs.



UHBVNL and others

                                                   -----Respondents
CORAM:-     HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

            HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG



Present:    Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the respondents.


Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.

1. This petition seeks quashing of instructions providing

for recovery of loss from the employee without there being finding

of his being negligent resulting in the loss and consequential order

of making deduction from the terminal benefits of the retired

employee.

2. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner served the

respondent-Electricity Corporation from 1970 to 2006. While

settling his retrial benefits, a sum of Rs.41944/- was withheld out
Civil Writ Petition No.1714 of 2008 2

of the gratuity on account of shortage of oil and breakage of

damaged transformers. The petitioner contested the said action by

pointing out that no recovery could be made from him without his

having been found responsible for the loss. The respondents have

not, however, accepted the petitioner’s stand.

3. The petitioner has referred to Anenxure P.1 wherein

finding is recorded that the petitioner was not responsible for the

loss.

4. In the reply, factual averment in Para 3 of the writ

petition that the petitioner was not found to be at fault for the loss

has not been disputed. However, it is mentioned that as per

instructions dated 2.9.2005 Annexure P.6, a part of shortage was to

be recovered from the petitioner.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

6. It is not necessary to go into the question whether

issuance of charge sheet or following of any other procedure was

necessary or not for effecting the recovery, in view of undisputed

factual position that the petitioner was held not to be responsible

for the loss caused in which case, there is no justification to effect

any recovery from the petitioner even after following the

procedure.

Civil Writ Petition No.1714 of 2008 3

7. Accordingly, we allow this petition and quash the

action of recovery from the terminal benefits of the petitioner for

the loss which may have been caused to the respondents.

Consequential benefits available to the petitioner be worked out

within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

                                        (Adarsh Kumar Goel)
                                                Judge


August 7, 2008                          (Rakesh Kumar Garg)
'gs'                                            Judge