108 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 16.02.2026 Kamlesh ....Petitioner Versus Managing Director, UHBVNL and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Sandeep Thakan, Advocate for the petitioner.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order/memo dated 21.12.2020 (Annexure P-4) passed by the respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that husband of the petitioner was appointed on 24.04.1979. His service was regularized as T-Mate on 20.05.1986. He was subsequently promoted to Assistant Lineman, then Lineman and finally as Assistant Foreman in the year 2009. The husband of the petitioner was retired from service as AFM on 30.04.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. After retirement, the complete retiral benefits including gratuity, leave encashment and commutation of pension were not released to him. The husband of the petitioner unfortunately died on 14.11.2017 (Annexure P-1). Thereafter, the petitioner started receiving the provisional family pension. However, vide impugned memo dated 21.12.2020 (Annexure P-4), the respondents imposed a recovery of Rs.4,97,857/- upon the petitioner by withholding the amounts of DCRG/gratuity, leave encashment and commutation of pension. The stated ground for withholding the benefits was an outstanding liability on account of non-returning of a damaged transformer.

3. He further relies upon the judgments rendered by this Court in CWP No.11701 of 2011 titled as ‘Dalip Singh Godara Vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others’ decided on 23.10.2017 (Annexure P-5), CWP No.38619 of 2025 titled as ‘Wazir Singh and another Vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others’ decided on 20.01.2026 (Annexure P-6), CWP No.2393 of 2015 titled as ‘Hans Raj Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others’ decided 17.04.2017 and CWP No.26406 of 2015 titled as ‘Subha Chand Vs. State of Haryana and another’ decided on 06.11.2019 (Annexure P-7) and submits that without issuing any show cause notice or charge sheet and without holding any inquiry, any recovery post retirement is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusal of the record with his able assistance, the present petition is being decided in limine without issuing any notice to the respondents in view of the fact that the exact stand is duly discernible from the impugned memo dated 21.12.2020 (Annexure P-4). The respondents imposed a recovery of Rs.4,97,857/- in the year 2020, whereas, the husband of the petitioner retired on 30.04.2013 and expired on 14.11.2017. As such, after the retirement of the husband of the petitioner and his death, no order having civil consequences and recovery from the retiral dues can be passed. The issue involved in the present petition is no longer res integra. This Court in Dalip Singh Godara’s case (supra) has already considered and decided this issue, by making the following observations: -

“As regards withholding an amount of Rs.2,21,171/- from the leave encashment, on account of shortage of oil and cost of missing parts of damaged transformers, Rule 2.2(b) of Punjab Civil Services, Volume 2, Part -1, deals with the situation of withholding of retiral benefits of any employee. As per the said Rule, retiral benefit of a retiree can be withheld only in case any disciplinary proceeding is pending against the retiree on the date of retirement. Admittedly, neither there was any enquiry pending against the petitioner nor was he chargesheeted for any misconduct at the time of his retirement. It is a settled proposition of law that mere issuance of show cause notice does not mean pendency of disciplinary enquiry and issuance of chargesheet is sine-qua-non for initiatio