Petitioner, a retired employee, challenged the recovery of ₹73,677 from his gratuity due to alleged transformer shortages without prior disciplinary proceedings. The Court held such recovery illegal and quashed the order.
Annexure P3 quashed; Respondents directed to refund ₹73,677 from petitioner's gratuity within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No.1048 of 2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.1048 of 2010 Date of decision:25.08.2010
D.D.Tewari
....Petitioner
Versus
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others
....Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI
Present: Mr. Satish Garg, Advocate for the petitioner,
Mr.Mohnish Sharma, Advocate, for Mr.Narinder Hooda, Advocate, for the respondents.
Permod Kohli J.
The petitioner has joined service on 30.08.1968 as Line Superintendent. He was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer-I in the year 1990 and retired from service on 31.10.2006 on attaining the age of superannuation. It is stated that during the period the petitioner was in service, he was in-charge of various transformers. There was shortage of oil and breakages of the parts of damaged transformers. A survey was got conducted through SDO 'op' Sub-Division UHBVN Israna. After the survey, it was found that the petitioner is not liable for any shortage/breakage. Respondent No.2 issued additional instruction whereby it was decided to condone the breakage upto a maximum of 5% of the existing cost of
2
CWP No.1048 of 2010
transformer and for shortage, a maximum of 25% of the total cost of the transformer. In the event the shortage and breakage is more than the prescribed limits, the same can be recovered from the concerned employee. On the basis of the aforesaid instruction, the respondents have withheld the gratuity amount of the petitioner. An amount of Rs.73,677/- was later recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner vide order dated: 07.08.2009. On receipt of the aforesaid order, the petitioner approached the respondents and was informed that the recovery has been made consequent upon the instructions issued by the respondents (instructions dated: 02.09.2005) restricting the condonation of damages to the limits noticed hereinabove. The petitioner has accordingly challenged the action of the respondents and the recovery order dated: 07.08.2009 affecting recovery from the petitioner. In the reply filed also, the respondents have relied upon the aforesaid Government instructions and various amounts have been shown to be recoverable from the petitioner. According to the reply filed by the respondents, huge amount of Rs.65.83 lacs is said to be recoverable from the petitioner.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner during the period he was in service or even after his retirement. Recovery from an employee is one of the prescribed punishment. No punishment can be imposed without initiating disciplinary proceedings. Admittedly, no disciplinary proceedings were ever initiated against the petitioner at any stage. Thus the impugned order (Annexure P3) and action of the respondents in affecting recovery from the petitioner is illegal and
CWP No.1048 of 2010
3
impermissible in law.
This petition is accordingly allowed and Annexure P3 is quashed. Respondents are directed to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner from his gratuity within a period of three months.
25.08.2010 sailesh
(Permod Kohli) JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether recovery of financial loss from a retired employee without initiating disciplinary proceedings is permissible.
Whether an order directing recovery of sums from gratuity without prior disciplinary action is illegal.
Whether the impugned recovery order ought to be quashed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
D.D. Tewari
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited
Permod Kohli
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
