K. Kannan, J. - (1.) The petitioner has a challenge to recovery of Rs.span 74,111/-, which is allgedly said to be caused to the respondent during his service that occasioned the loss of some transformer oil and some missing parts. The petitioner retired in the year 2001 and the payment has been issued in the year 2002 to an extent of Rs.span 40,633/-. This was less than what he was entitled to and therefore, the petitioner has engaged the respondents in some communications before filing a writ petition contending that he was not responsible for the loss and he would also bring support to a report to be given in the year 2008 that he was not responsible for the loss.
(2.) The writ petition is absolutely lacking in any particular about when the particular loss that had been attributed to the petitioner had been communicated to the petitioner. It comes out only through the information supplied by the respondent in the reply and the documentary evidence, which has been brought in support of the contentions raised by the respondents. In particular, the respondents served a notice on the petitioner on 05.06.1996 listing out the several parts and the respective amounts to which the petitioner was accountable. There has been a further communication issued on 04.12.1996 specifically bringing home the point that the petitioner must give a reply for the demand and if the reply was not given, he would debited against the further miscellaneous advances without any further notice and the amount would be recovered from his pay. The petitioner has not brought on record anything to show that he had responded to the communication, which was issued on 04.12.1996 fixing a liability on him. The respondents have relied on the departmental instructions issued by the Accounts Officer to the various XENs of the Electricity Board as to how the recoveries ought to be made and the manner of fixing the responsibility of those who are responsible for the particular missing parts. When an order was passed on 16.10.2002 releasing money after his retirement in the year 2001, the petitioner has waited all along to come to Court in the year 2009 to contend that the deduction could not have been made.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar Dhamija v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others in C.W.P. No.7949 of 2005 dated 21.09.2006 and a still earlier decision in Hans Raj Sharma v. UHBVN Limited and others in C.W.P. No.152 of 2004 dated 29.07.2004 where the different Benches of this Court held that recoveries cannot be made without appropriate enquiry. The counsel would contend that these two judgments would squarely apply to the facts of the case. The issue of liability without an enquiry cannot be said to be concluded by the judgment in the above two cases. The issue of liability will have to be seen in the context of what has been attributed to the petitioner and how the response has been. I have not been shown through any proceedings that deflect from an inference that the petitioner was responsible when such an imputation had been made in the year 1996. Again if the petitioner had been retired in the year 2001 and the terminal benefits had been issued to him, which was not the whole of the amount and the petitioner found that an amount of Rs.span 74,111/- detailed in the notice issued in the year 1996 had been deducted, he cannot plead ignorance or innocence that he did not know that these amounts represented the alleged loss attributed to him.;