Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARBANS SINGH RANGILA versus STATE OF PUNJAB

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Harbans Singh Rangila v. State of Punjab - CWP-8850-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 4364 (19 July 2006)

....

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

....

CWP NO.8850 OF 2005

DATE OF DECISION: 25.7.2006

Harbans Singh Rangila

... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others.

... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRAN ANAND LALL

Present:- Mr. M.S. Kang, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the respondents.

...

J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral)

Through the instant writ petition the petitioner has made a claim for a sum of Rs.1,12,860/- which is stated to have been arbitrarily deducted from the retiral benefits due to the petitioner.

As against the aforesaid claim of the petitioner, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that after considering the representation made by the petitioner and after verifying the records, a sum of Rs.76987.75 was found as payable to the petitioner from out of the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,12,860/- and accordingly the aforesaid amount was released to the petitioner.

After the release of the amount of Rs.76987.75 to the petitioner, the balance of his claim is for a sum of Rs.35872.25. Insofar as the aforesaid amount is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents having invited our attention to the averments made in paragraph No.3 of the written statement, vehemently contends, that a regular departmental ....

enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and in the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, it had been found that the petitioner was responsible for causing a loss to the public exchequer for a sum of Rs.35872.25. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for the recovery of the aforesaid amount. It is submitted that the aforesaid show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 17.6.2005.

Learned counsel for the respondents states on instructions from Mr. Adesh Gupta, Sub Divisional Engineer, office of Executive Engineer, PWD B&R, Amritsar that the petitioner has not yet submitted his reply to the same. If a reply to the same is submitted by the petitioner within one month from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the competent authority within a further period of two months. In case the petitioner is found to be entitled to any further emoluments out of the remaining amount of Rs.35872.25, the same shall be released to him thereafter within a further period of one month.

Disposed of accordingly. Order Dasti on payment of usual charges.

(J. S. KHEHAR)

JUDGE

(KIRAN ANAND LALL)

July 25, 2006. JUDGE

sn

....

(J. S. KHEHAR)

JUDGE

(KIRAN ANAND LALL)

July 25, 2006. JUDGE

sn


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.