Disposed

Manohar Singh v. P S E B and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Feb 2011CWP/6121/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge held that no interference was required with the final 1991 penalty order given time-barred challenge by the retired petitioner. However, the Court disposed the writ by directing respondents to reconsider the quantum of recovery based on a 1992 memo observing a lower shortage value.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to reconsider the recoverable amount based on the 1991 order and 1992 memo within three months.

Manohar Singh Vs P S E B and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP No.6121 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.02.2011 ****

Manohar Singh

VS.

PSEB & Ors.

. . . . Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶10

¶11

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

¶15

Present: Mr. Sharwan Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner

¶16

Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for the respondents ****

¶17

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

¶18

(1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the order No.146 dated 22.02.2006 (Annexure P2) (allegedly delivered to him on 23.02.2006) issued pursuant to the earlier order No.417 dated 22.10.1991 (Annexure P1) for the recovery of a sum of Rs.2,41,382.50 paise.

¶19

(2). Suffice it to mention here that the petitioner joined the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board as a Junior Engineer on 04.08.1970 and has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.08.2007 i.e. during the pendency of this writ petition. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 18.12.1990 while in service to which he failed to submit any reply despite opportunities given. The allegations against the petitioner

¶20

2 –

¶21

CWP No.6121 of 2006.doc

¶22

pertained to shortage of material in the store under his control. An order dated 22.10.1991 accordingly was passed imposing a penalty of recovery of Rs.2,41,382.50. After some correspondence inter se between the Authorities, another order dated 22.02.2005 was passed whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit the above-stated amount. The said order is alleged to have been received by the petitioner on 23.02.2006 only.

¶23

(3).

¶24

(4).

¶25

The aggrieved petitioner has filed this writ petition, inter alia, on the grounds that the impugned liability has been fastened on him after he had been transferred from the Store where the alleged shortage of material was detected. It is also urged that the respondents themselves in a later communication dated 28.02.1992 (Annexure R1) have acknowledged that at the best the amount due against the petitioner could be Rs.46,327.50 only out of which also Rs.15,692/- can be deducted if the petitioner show the transfer of goods in EMB. The petitioner urges that even according to the respondents a sum of Rs.30,634/- can only be recovered from him.

¶26

The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit maintaining that the recovery order was passed way back on 22.10.1991 as a punitive measure after serving the charge-sheet upon

¶27

3 –

¶28

CWP No.6121 of 2006.doc

¶29

the petitioner and he never challenged the said order in appeal etc.

¶30

(5). Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the order dated 22.10.1991 has attained finality merits consideration. Suffice it to say that the order was passed after serving the petitioner with a charge-sheet and it was as a punitive measure as ‘recovery’ is one of the prescribed punishment. The petitioner ought to have challenged the said order before the Appellate Authority or any other appropriate forum. No interference in the said order is called for at this stage in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court, especially on a factual plea that the petitioner had already been transferred from the Store where the alleged shortage took place.

¶31

(6).

¶32

Faced with this, learned counsel for the petitioner points out the memo dated 28.02.1992 (Annexure R1) which contains some observations, which if found to be correct, would substantially reduce the liability of the petitioner. In other words, while the petitioner would still be guilty of causing ‘shortage’ in the Store, the total value of the items found missing etc. would stand reduced to Rs.46,327-50 paise or Rs.30,634/- only.

¶33

4 –

¶34

CWP No.6121 of 2006.doc

¶35

(7). The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to respondents No.2 & 3 to re-consider the amount recoverable from the petitioner on the basis of the punishment order dated 22.10.1991 especially keeping in view the observations made in the memo dated 28.02.1992 (Annexure R1). The second respondent shall pass appropriate orders preferably after hearing the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶36

(8). Ordered accordingly. Dasti .

¶37

15.02.2011 (S u r y a K a n t) vishal shonkar Judge

Manohar Singh v. P S E B and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manohar Singh v. P S E B and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramanpreet Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Jasbir Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Kamal Kumar Vs Authorised Officer, LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

R,K.Arora Vs Pu. Plann. Dev. Author. Puda and Anr,.

Kuldip Kumar Vs Punjab Police Housing Corporation

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Punjab etc.