Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Karnal & Anr. v. Ram Dayal Gupta
Case at a glance
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Relief.” The suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed by the Trial Court. It was found that no record was shown as to how the recovery of this amount was due from the respondent-plaintiff. Aggrieved against the same, the Board had filed an appeal…
Judgment
Mr. Vikas Suri, Advocate, for the appellants. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Aggrieved against the action of the appellant-Board to deduct a sum of Rs.2,22,811/- out of the total gratuity payable to the respondent-plaintiff, he had filed a suit for recovery of this amount illegally deducted out of the gratuity payable to the respondent- plaintiff. Ram Dayal Gupta had joined the appellant-Board as Lineman, when it was known as Haryana Electricity Board on
16.10.1970. He was subsequently promoted as Junior Engineer and remained posted at Nelokheri. On 16.9.1998, the Board was re- named as Haryana Vitran Parasan Nigam Ltd. and took over the REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.3317 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 2 }: entire functioning of the Electricity Board. Respondent-plaintiff retired as Junior Engineer on 30.6.2006 from Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. after rendering 36 years service. Respondent-plaintiff would claim that he had maintained an unblemished record of service and was also furnished no due certificate. Still, however, his pensionary benefits were not released and while forwarding the GPO, a recovery of Rs.2,22,811/- was shown against the respondent-plaintiff. Total amount of gratuity payable to the respondent-plaintiff was Rs.3,16,107/- and he accordingly was disbursed an amount of Rs.93,276/- after deducting a sum of Rs.2,22,811/- from his total amount of gratuity payable. The appellant-Board justified this recovery on the basis of Rule 2.2 (b) of C.S.R, which is applicable to the employees of the Board as the same has been adopted by the Board. The respondent-plaintiff would plead that no charge sheet was served upon him. No regular enquiry was held. He was not issued any show cause notice before effecting recovery and, thus, would say that the procedure adopted to recover this amount was even in violation of the mandatory provisions of Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. He has accordingly filed a suit for recovery of this amount, which according to him, has been deducted illegally. In response to the suit, the appellants would urge that the pensionary benefits payable to the respondent-plaintiff were not settled on account of shortage of oil/parts of damage transformer. A sum of Rs.20,435/- was written off whereas the balance amount of Rs.2,22,811/- was outstanding against the respondent-plaintiff, which has been rightly deducted from the gratuity payable to him. REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.3317 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 3 }: On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for declaration with consequential relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP
Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD
Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file and maintain the present suit? OPD
Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD
Relief.” The suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed by the Trial Court. It was found that no record was shown as to how the recovery of this amount was due from the respondent-plaintiff. Aggrieved against the same, the Board had filed an appeal before the first Appellate Court. The first Appellate Court found that no proceedings were initiated against the respondent-plaintiff for recovering the loss, if any caused, prior to his retirement. The list of the short material was also submitted only on 13.7.2006 after the retirement of the respondent-plaintiff and the recovery was ordered only on 3.1.2007. It is also noticed that no opportunity of hearing was ever afforded to the respondent-plaintiff. In this background, the action of the appellant-Board to deducted a sum of Rs.2,22,811/- was found to be illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
However, the rate of interest allowed by the Trial Court was reduced from 18% to 12%. The Board has accordingly filed the present Regular Second Appeal. REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.3317 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 4 }: Learned counsel for the appellants has made two fold submissions before me. He would first contend that proper court fee was not affixed, on the basis of amount recovery of which was sought. This part of submission would not call for interference as if there is any shortfall, the same can be got made up from the respondent-plaintiff. The counsel would then submit that Rule 2.2 (b) of the Civil Services Rules, as is applicable to the case of respondent-plaintiff, would authorise the appellants to direct this recovery from the gratuity payable to the respondent-plaintiff. Rule 2.2 (b) of C.S.R may give a right to the Government to withhold or withdraw a pension permanently or for specified period but this can only be done by following the requirement laid down in the Rules.
Neither any departmental proceeding was initiated against the respondent-plaintiff nor any loss caused by him was determined. Even for determining the loss, the opportunity was required to be afforded to the respondent-plaintiff and only then he could be held guilty of any misconduct or negligence, leading to causing the loss. Not only that, the loss was required to be shown as direct and immediate cause of the negligence. In other words, the loss has to be shown as a Causa-cousan i.e. the last link in the chain of causation and not merely a causa-sina-qua-non. Since neither the procedure under the Rules was followed nor negligence or loss has been sufficiently been established, the view taken by the Trial Court as well as appellate Court can not be faulted. There is no substantial question of law really arising in this case. The action of the appellant- Board in deducting a huge amount from the gratuity payable to the respondent-plaintiff is not justified and has been so made violating REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.3317 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 5 }: the procedural mandate. The Regular Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. April 19, 2010 khurmi ( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.