Madan Lal Sukhija vs Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran … on 5 October, 2009

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH.

                                                    C.W.P. No. 1483 of 2009
                                          DATE OF DECISION : 05.10.2009

Madan Lal Sukhija

                                                            ... PETITIONERS
                                   Versus
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and another

                                                         ..... RESPONDENTS


CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL


Present:    Mr. N.P.S. Kohli, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate,
            for the respondents.

                         ***

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )

The petitioner, who at present is working as Assistant Engineer/

SDO in the office of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam at Sirsa, has filed

the instant petition for quashing the order dated 28.5.2007 (Annexure P-1),

whereby the amount of Rs. 43,005/- has been ordered to be deducted from

the salary of the petitioner on account of missing parts and shortage of oil in

damaged transformers belonging to the Nigam.

It is the case of the petitioner that before passing the aforesaid

order, no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was provided to him.

Counsel for the respondents, though, tried to explain that before ordering

the aforesaid recovery, show cause notices were issued to the petitioner,
CWP No. 1483 of 2009 -2-

copies of which have been annexed as Annexures R-1 to R-6, but during the

course of hearing, it is not disputed by him that those notices pertain to the

different amounts. In view of this factual position, counsel for the

respondents states that the respondents be permitted to pass a fresh order,

after giving show cause notice to the petitioner and providing him an

opportunity of hearing, as provided under the Rules.

In view of the aforesaid statement, made by counsel for the

respondents, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated

28.5.2007 (Annexure P-1) is quashed. However, liberty is granted to the

respondents to pass a fresh order, after issuing show cause notice and

providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

October 05, 2009                            ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
ndj                                                  JUDGE