Partly allowed

Hvpn v. G.L.Sharma

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Oct 2024RSA/413/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Employee suspended for about six years sued for declaration that suspension-period orders were void and for full pay and pensionary benefits. Trial court decreed retiral dues with 18% interest; first appellate court affirmed. In second appeal, the High Court reduced the interest rate to 9% per annum and otherwise upheld the concurrent findings.

What did the court decide?

Interest on retiral dues reduced from 18% to 9% p.a. from date of this decision; 18% already paid not recoverable; decree-sheet accordingly.

Hvpn Vs G.L.Sharma — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

RSA-413-2002 (O&M)

¶2

- 1-

¶3

212

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

-.-

¶6

101 RSA-413-2002 (O&M) Date of Decision : 01.10.2024

¶7

HVPN Ltd. ....Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

G.L. Sharma ....Respondent

¶10

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

¶11

Present: M r .Arvind Seth, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

M r .Ravinder Jain, Advocate for the respondent.

¶13

-.-

¶14

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

¶15

Th e present appeal is filed agai n st the judgment and decree d a ted 31.07.1998 pas s ed by the learned Civil Judge ( Senior Division), Kurukshetra and also against th e judgment and decree dated 2 9.08.2001 passed by the lear n ed Appellate Cour t whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant aga i nst the judgment a n d decree dated 31.07.1998 was d ismissed. 2. Br i ef facts of the case as mentio n ed before the Civil Judge (Se n ior Division), Kur u kshetra in suit for declaratio n are that suit was instituted by G.L.Sharma, J. E . against Haryana State Elec t ricity Board (hereinafter calle d as HSEB) through its Secretary and others for de c ree of declaration to the effect t hat show-cause notice dated 23.4.1990 and office order dated 27.11 1992 are p a rtly illegal, null and void and not binding on the pla i ntiff and that the suspension pe r iod of plaintiff is d u ty period for all intents and pur p oses and plaintiff is entitled for the entire pay and allowances of the suspension period from the defendants w ith consequential r e lief of mandatory injunction di r ecting the defendants to releas e all AMIT KAUNDAL 2024.10.22 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the pensionary b enefits alongwith interest @ 18 % per annum to the plaintiff. Chandigarh

¶16

RSA-413-2002 (O&M) - 2-

¶17

Pl a intiff's case, in brief, was th a t he was permanent employe e of HSEB and the work and conduct of plaintif f was satisfactory through-out his service. There h ave never been adverse entrie s in the ACRs of plaintiff. Plai n tiff was issued ch a rge-sheets No. 19 dated 28. 1 1.1983, No. CH50/LS-523 d a ted 28.2.86, No.55 dated 11.8.86 and No. CH95 d ated 9.3.1990 vide which sev e ral false and friv o lous allegations were levelled against him and plaintiff h ad submitted his r e plies to the said charges well in time. It is pleaded that plaintiff w as placed under s u spension since December, 198 4 and subsistence allowance has not been paid to h i m for suspension period and h e has not been re-instated so far. Defendants ha v e relieved the plaintiff from s e rvice vide letter No. 20.4.90 and against that order plaintiff has made represent a tion for the liquidation of the d ues of the period o f undue suspension and pensio n ary benefits. However, defend a nts without going through the replies of plainti f f issued show-cause notice d a ted 23.4.1990 alleg i ng frivolous charges and have tentatively decided to impose 10% cut in the pensi o n of plaintiff, to recover the co s t of 20 liters of transformer oil and to treat the s u spension period of plaintiff w .e.f. 13.12.1984 till the date of retirement as n o n-duty period for all intents and purposes. 4. It i s further pleaded that defenda n ts have passed illegal order d a ted 27.11.1992 vide which defendants imposed r ecovery of costs of 20 liters of transformer oil and the services of plaintiff h a ve been censured and suspen s ion period of plaint i ff w.e.f. 13.12.1984 to 23.4.19 9 0 has been regularised as leav e of the kind due an d remaining charges of show-c a use notice have been dropped. I t is pleaded that i m pugned order is partly illegal and liable to be set aside as the suspension peri o d of plaintiff is to be treated as duty period and plaintiff is enti t led for pay and all o wances of the entire suspensio n period and further defendants are AMIT KAUNDAL not entitled to r ecover the cost of 20 liters o f transformer oil from the plain t iff. 2024.10.22 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

RSA-413-2002 (O&M) - 3-

¶19

Plaintiff was n o t retired by the competent auth o rity by making proper order o f reinstatement and the defendants have shown the plaintiff as retired in the subject of show-cause no t ice without giving any date of retirement whereas Execu t ive Engineer, City Division, Panipat in his lette r dated 25.4.1990 has shown the plaintiff under s uspension. It is further pleaded t hat despite several representati o ns, defendants hav e failed to consider the case of p laintiff. When the innocence of the plaintiff is very much proved, he is not at all at fault as defendants have not pa s sed any speaking o r der with reasons. Since defend a nts have failed to admit the cl a im of plaintiff, this suit was instituted.

¶20

Upon notice, the appellant-defend a nt appeared and submitted that the plaintiff was charge-sheeted on 28.11.1984, 22 . 2.1986, 11.8.1986 and on 9.3.1 9 90 and the said ch a rge-sheets were based upon co n crete and substantial proofs aga i nst the plaintiff. It i s averred that plaintiff remaine d under suspension since Decem b er, 1984 and the s u bsistence allowance was bein g paid to him as per rules. Plai n tiff could not be re i nstated because he did not file reply to the two charge sheets and enquiry too co u ld not be completed due to l apse on the part of the plain t iff. Plaintiff retire d on 20.4.1990, whereas, he should have been relieved on 31.10.1989 on attaining the age of superan n uation i.e. 58 years but du e to inadvertence, h e continued in service till 20.4 . 1990. It is further submitted t hat plaintiff was re l ieved on 23.04.1990 in compli a nce of letter No.30/EP/4196 d a ted 20.4.1990. Plai n tiff made no representation at all and if any same could no t be decided in the a bsence of reply to the charge- s heet. It was denied that bogus and frivolous char g es were levelled in the sh o w-cause notice dated 23.4.1 9 90. Defendants ha d proposed in the show-cause n otice that tentatively 10% cu t or reduction shou l d be made in the pension of t he plaintiff. Lateron, after ha v ing AMIT KAUNDAL thorough enqui r y and taking lenient view, 10 % cut has been waived and reco v ery 2024.10.22 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶21

RSA-413-2002 (O&M) - 4-

¶22

of cost of 20 l iters transformer oil has bee n ordered to be effected from the plaintiff. Plaint i ff has been given concession b y way of treating his suspen s ion period as leave of the kind due to him. Lawf u l order was passed on 27.11.1 9 92 while taking le n ient view on account of retire m ent of the plaintiff. It is denied t hat suspension peri o d of plaintiff has to be treated as duty period. It is further ave r red that plaintiff di d not fulfill the requirement of s u bmitting pension forms etc. no r he submitted any f orms, documents for sanction o f pension etc. Defendants are ready to pay all the b e nefits to which the plaintiff fou n d to be entitled as per rules sub j ect to submission o f documents. Therefore, defend a nts are not at all responsible for the delay, rather, t h e plaintiff himself is at fault. I n such like facts, defendants h ave categorically d e nied the claim of plaintiff an d prayed for dismissal of suit w ith costs.

¶23

Fr o m the pleading of the parties, t h e following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the charge-she e ts dated 28.11.83, 28.2.86, 11. 8 .86 and 9.3.90 are illegal and v o id on the grounds mentioned in the plaint, if so to what effect?O P P. 1-A. Whether order date d 27.11.1992 whereby suspen s ion period of plaintiff has bee n treated as leave of kind due a nd recovery of price of 20 liter o il was ordered and 10% deduc t ion in the pension has been i m posed is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff, if so to what effect?OPP 2. Whether the show-cause n otice dated 23.4.1990 is illegal a nd void, if so to what effect?OP P

¶24

3. Whether the suit of the p laintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD

¶25

4. Whether the suit is barre d by time?OPD

¶26

AMIT KAUNDAL 2024.10.22 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

RSA-413-2002 (O&M) - 5-

¶28

5. Whether the Civil Court h as got no jurisdiction to enter t ain and try this suit? OPD

¶29

6. Whether no notice as r equired under the Haryana S t ate Electricity Board Act was se r ved upon the defendants?OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiff is e s topped by his own act and con d uct from filing the present suit? O PD.

¶30

8. Whether the plaintiff has n o cause of action?OPD

¶31

9. Whether the defendants a re entitled to special costs u/s 3 5A CPC?OPD.

¶32

10. Relief. ”

¶33

Af t er hearing both the parties a n d perusing the whole record, the learned Civil J u dge (Senior Division), Kuru k shetra partly allowed the suit by holding that th e re was a delay on the part of t h e defendant-appellant in relea s ing the payment of retrial dues to the plaintiff-resp o ndent and, therefore, the plain t iffrespondent was held entitled to all the retiral d u es and arrears of salary along w ith interest @ 18 % per annum from the date of r e tiral dues/arrears of salary accr u ed till the date of a c tual payment.

¶34

Th e appeal filed by the appellant before the First Appellate Court w as dismissed. He n ce, appellant filed the present a p peal.

¶35

SUBMISSION OF COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

¶36

Le a rned counsel for the appellant c ontends that both the Courts be l ow have passed t he impugned judgment and decree without appreciation of facts/evidence o n record. He further contends that the interest at the rate of 18% per annum is al s o on the higher side.

¶37

Pe r contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that there are AMIT KAUNDAL concurrent find i ng against the appellant and t h e suit for declaration filed by the 2024.10.22 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶38

RSA-413-2002 (O&M) - 6-

¶39

plaintiff-respon d ent has rightly been decreed a n d the appeal filed by the appel l ant before the Firs t Appellate Court has rightly b e en dismissed. He further contends that since there are concurrent finding against t he appellant, therefore, the pre s ent appeal is liable t o be dismissed.

¶40

I h ave heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the w h ole record of the ca s e.

¶41

Re l evant portion of the judgment p assed by the First Appellate C o urt is reproduced a s under:-

¶42

“9. I have heard Shri A.S. P abla, Advocate, for the appell a nts in first appeal no. 145 of 1998 and for the respondent s in second appeal no. 126 o f 1998/51 of 1999, and Sh. R .P. Kaushik, Advocate for the ap pellant in second Appeal no. 1 26 of 1998 (51 of 1999) and fo r the respondents in first appeal N o. 145 of 1998, at sufficient le n gth and have gone through the f ile carefully.

¶43

10. Shri A.S.Pabla, learned counsel for H.V.P.Ν. Ltd., etc. has challenged the impu g ned judgment and decree d a ted 31.7.1998 on the ground th a t the findings of the learned t r ial court on issues No.3 to 1 0 are against the law, facts a nd evidence proved on the fi l e, and are liable to be set-a s ide because the learned trial C ourt had is wrongly decided i s sue No.4 being not pressed, w hereas the appellants HSEB h ad strongly contested this issu e and had pleaded that the suit w as barred by time. Further, t he plaintiff was not entitled for interest on the delayed pay m ent of retrial dues and as such the findings of the learned tri a l court on Issue No.3 are tot a lly

¶44

AMIT KAUNDAL 2024.10.22 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶45

RSA-413-2002 (O&M) - 7-

¶46

erroneous. The plaintiff w a s estopped by his own act a nd conduct from tiling the pres e nt suit as the plaintiff was cha r gesheeted on 28.11.1983, 2 8.2.1986, 11.8.86 and 9.3.1 9 90 plaintiff filed reply to the ch a rge-sheets 11.8.1986 and 9.3.1 9 90 and as such the case and th e dated was considered ex-part e on the basis of the record by t h e competent authority. Therea f ter show-cause notice dated 23.4.1998 was served upon the plaintiff and reply of the p l aintiff was also considered. A f ter considering the reply of th e plaintiff, the charge-sheets d a ted 28.11.1983 and 11.8.1986 w ere dropped and a recovery o f 20 Litres of Transformer oil, a s per charge-sheet No. 50/LS- 5 23 dated 28.2.1996, as per r u les, was ordered to be recov e red from the plaintiff from his p ending on account of the plai n tiff being held responsible shor t age of 20 litres of Transformer oil. Similarly with respect to ch a rge-sheet dated 9.3.1990 also the plaintiff did not file satisf a ctory reply and consequently his services were censured bec a use on the basis of the recor d it was proved that the plaitnif f had demanded illegal gratifica t ion from one Hazara Singh for showing undue favour to him, a nd therefore, the suspension pe r iod of the plaintiff from 13.12.1 9 84 to 23.4.1990, till date of reti r ement, was regularised as leav e of kind due. Learned counsel fu rther argued that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file t h e present suit as the plaintiff has been legally punished afte r affording due opportunity. T he findings of the learned tria l court on issues No.1 and 2 have been admitted as correct. T h us, learned counsel for HVPN L td.

¶47

AMIT KAUNDAL 2024.10.22 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶48

RSA-413-2002 (O&M) - 8-

¶49

etc. has submitted that in s uch circumstances the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be dis m issed with costs.

¶50

11. On the other hand, Shri R.P.Kaushik, Advocate for plaintiff Sh. G.L.Sharma has argued that the learned. t r ial Court while deciding issue s No.1 and 1-A did not allow the suspension period from 1 3 .12.1984 to 23.4.1990 as 1 d uty period’ and also did not all o w the salary of the said perio d to the plaintiff with interest an d also did not declare the impug n ed order dated 27.11.1992 as il l egal, null and void and bad in l aw. Similarly, the learned tria l Court had wrongly imposed the recovery of 20 litres of Tra n sformer oil from the pending d ues of the plaintiff, which puni s hment is also illegal and wit h out any basis. Thus, the lea r ned trial Court had commi t ted illegality and material irreg u larity while deciding the case a nd not allowing the claim of t h e plaintiff and thus has given its findings in utter disregard o f the settled principle of law a nd justice. It was thus argued that the impugned judgment a nd decree dated 31.7.1998 be s e t aside to the above extent. 12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the r i val contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant r e cord produced by both the par t ies. Charge-sheet dated 28.2.19 8 6 is Ex.P1, vide which penalty for the recovery of price of 2 0 litres of Transformer oil w as imposed upon the plaitniff, statement of allegations is Ex.P2, reply of charge-sheet dated 28.2.1986 is Ex.P3. Charge- s h eet dated 9.3.1990 is Ex.P4, st a tement of charge is Ex.P5, list of

¶51

AMIT KAUNDAL 2024.10.22 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶52

RSA-413-2002 (O&M) - 9-

¶53

allegations is Ex. P6, char g e-sheet dated 11.8.1986 is Ex.P7, statement of charge summ a r of allegations is Ex.PB, sh o wcause notice is Ex.P9, repl y of show cause notice is Ex. P 10, application is Ex. P11, offic e order No.146 dated 27.11.199 2 is Ex.P12. All these document s have been placed on record by the plaintiff G.L.Sharma, on th e other hand, HVPN Ltd. etc. have place reliance upon the d o cuments: letter regularisatio n of suspension period of Ex.D 9 , reply of the plaintiff as Ex. D 10, letter dated 18.6.1995 as E x.D11, letter dated 31.8.1995 as Ex.D12, show cause notice as Ex.D13, letter of payment, as Ex.D14, Office order dated 27.11.1992 as Ex.D-15, Orde r of retirement dated 23.4.1990 a s Ex.D18, and letter of 13.10.1 9 98 for N.D.C. from all division s as Ex.D19. In Ex.D-15, the o ff ice order dated 27.11.1992 it is stated that charge against the plaintiff has been proved a nd he was held responsible for shortage of 20 litres of Transformer oil which is to be recovered from his pendin g dues. How in what manner the order for recovery of the p r ice of 20 litres of Transforme r oil has been passed, has not be e n explained, as it is stated by D W1 R.S. Sardana in his exa m ination-in-chief that two dama g ed Transformers which were i n charge of G.L.Sharma were not handed over to anybody wh e n G.L.Sharma was retired and b oth these transformers bearin g no. 2825 DKT-100 KVA a nd 1833/57-S.C.E.-25-KVA we r e got deposited by him along w ith other transformers in Divis i onal Store, karnal, and both t h ese transformers were found containing less 10 litres oil e a ch,

¶54

AMIT KAUNDAL 2024.10.22 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶55

RSA-413-2002 (O&M) - 10-

¶56

which is clear from the stoc k measurement book, Ex.02. A c o py stock of the measurement b o ok has been placed on record. But in cross-examination he a dmitted that he along with the plaintiff remained posted i n the year 1984 and thereafter the plaintiff was suspended. H e further admitted that he did not know many transformers w e re in the charge of the plainti ff in the year 1984 but the trans f ormers lying in the complex w ere deposited by him in the stor e of H.S.E.B. Karnal, on 27.3.1 9 85, and this fact has been menti o ned in Exs.D1 and D2. He fur t her stated that on those transf o rmers it was not written that t hey were under the control of t h e plaintiff and he was also not in possession of the record on the basis of which he could s t ate that these damaged transfo r mers were indeed in possessio n of the plaintiff. He also di d not know when transform e rs, mentioned in Exs. D1 and D 2, were installed and when t hey were removed from the site and sent to H.S.Ε.Β. complex. He admitted that, as per rules, t ransformer maintenance regist e r is kept which is in possession of the J.E. and after every six m o nth an entry is made in the reg i ster and two bottles of oil is taken out from the transformer a s sample just to know whether the transformer was working p roperly or not. If as a resul t of testing the working of tra n sformer is less than 40 K.V. p er minute, then oil of the trans f ormer after heating is put bac k in the transformer and efficie n cy in oil of transformer is m a de good by putting extra oil u p to the requisite level and extra oil put in the transformer is entered in the transfor m er

¶57

AMIT KAUNDAL 2024.10.22 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶58

RSA-413-2002 (O&M) - 11-

¶59

maintenance register. He f urther admitted that he had not brought the Transformer M a intenance Register in the court a nd he also did not take into ch a rge the Transformer Maintenance Register while taking ch a rge of the plaintiff. He fur t her admitted that when two b ottles of oil are taken from the transformer as sample, som e of the oil also falls on the gro u nd and some of the oil is also wasted on that account as wel l as some oil were consumed on account of burning and about 2% of the oil used to evapor a te during one year. He fur t her admitted that he did not kn o w whether any show cause notice was given to the plaintiff fo r treating his Suspension perio d as leave of any kind due.

¶60

13. Thus from the statem e nt of DWI R.S.Sardan,. it is c l ear that the department was d uty bound to produce the record pertaining to transformers bearing No. 2825-DKT-100 K VA and 1833/57/S.C.E.25 KVA to prove that they were under the charge and control of the pl a intiff when the oil was found s h ort and the Department wa s also duty bound to pro d uce transformer maintenance re g ister to establish that shortag e of the oil in the transformers h a d occurred during the period t hey remained under the control and supervision of the plai n tiff. These facts have neither b e en mentioned in the office o r der Ex.D15 nor in the statemen t of allegations, Ex.P2. Thus, in my opinion, the department ha d imposed the penalty of recover y of the price of 20 litres of t ransformer ail from the plai t niff without any basis. Similarl y , the allegations mentioned in the

¶61

AMIT KAUNDAL 2024.10.22 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶62

RSA-413-2002 (O&M) - 12-

¶63

charge-sheet No. 95 date d 9.3.1990 that the plaitniff h ad demanded Rs. 1000/- as ill e gal gratification for the releas e of connection as L.T. from of one Hazara Singh, residen t of village Rajpur and threaten e d in case demanded money was not paid his case would be con v erted into H.T. had also not been established by the depa r tment by leading cogent a nd convencing evidence as in the charge sheet it is no w h ere mentioned when and where a nd on which date this demand w as made by the plaintiff fro m Hazara Singh. Moreover, this charge-sheet was issued to the plaitniff on 9.3.1990 i.e. at the time of retirement, although as per date of birth of the plai n tiff, the plaintiff was suppose d to retire on 30.10.1989 but he continued in Service upto 2 3.4.1990 on account of sleck n ess and carelessness on the par t of the department as he remai n ed suspended w.e.f. 13.12.1 9 84 to 31.10.1989. Thus, this allegation has also not been established by the department a nd censuring of the plaintiff believing this allegation to be t rue without showing the recor d and necessary documents to the plaintiff clearly shows that this charge-sheet was served u p on the plaintiff on 23.4.1990 when he had been retired a nd admittedly no charge-she e t could be served upon ret i red employee. On the face of i t, it seems to be a cooked u p a fabricated story by the dep a rtment just to cover the perio d of suspension because other t w o charge-sheets dated 28.11.1 9 83 and 11.8.1986 were droppe d by the department.

¶64

AMIT KAUNDAL 2024.10.22 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶65

RSA-413-2002 (O&M) - 13-

¶66

14. Thus, from the above d iscussion, it is clear that there w as no charge-sheet, worth the name, against the plaintiff an d he remained suspended for a b out six years and his dues w ere withheld by the department and 10% of out of his pension w as ordered for recovery of fu r nace oil, without conducting a ny proper enquiry.

¶67

19. The learned trial Co u rt has awarded interest at the r ate of 18% per annum on th e retrial benefits which has been withheld by the department. I also do not find any illegalit y in the impugned judgment pass e d by the learned trial Court”

¶68

CONCLUSION:-

¶69

A perusal of the above referred to reproduction of the impug n ed judgment show s that it is a well reasoned and s p eaking, which does not require any interference by t his Court.

¶70

So far as interest part is conce r ned, the present appeal is p a rtly allowed to the e xtent of reducing the interest a t the rate of 09% from 18%. T he appellants are, t herefore, directed to pay the int e rest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of decisio n of the present appeal. It is m a de clear that the interest at the r ate of 18%, if alre a dy paid to the respondent, till t h e decision of the appeal, shall not

¶71

be recovered fr o m the respondent.

¶72

De c ree-sheet be drawn accordingl y . 16. Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶73

October 01, 20 2 4 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) A.Kaundal JUDGE

¶74

Wheth e r speaking/non-speaking : Spea k ing Wheth e r reportable : Yes/ N o

¶75

AMIT KAUNDAL 2024.10.22 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Hvpn v. G.L.Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hvpn v. G.L.Sharma

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

Krishna Devi and Ors. Vs Gian Singh and Ors.

Harbans Ram and Ors. Vs Mehar Singh and Ors.

Balwinder Singh Vs Rajinder Kaur and Ors.

(O&M)Nirmal Parmar Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Kishan Lal

Gurdev Singh Vs State of Haryana