CWP-6487-2001 

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 

CHANDIGARH 

CWP-6487-2001 (O&M) 

D.C. Tanwar 

… Petitioner 

Versus 

State of Haryana and others                   

                          …Respondents 

1. Date when judgment was reserved 07.05.2026

2. Date of pronouncement of judgment 01.07.2026

3. Date of uploading the judgment 01.07.2026

4. Whether operative part or full judgment is

pronounced

Full

5. Delay, if any, in pronouncing of full

judgment and reasons thereof

Not Applicable

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR 

Present:  Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate 

    with Mr. Mayank Garg, Advocate 

    and Ms. Komal Parveen Singh, Advocate 

    for the petitioner. 

    Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. A.G. Haryana. 

    Mr. Manoj Kumar Sood, Advocate 

    for the respondents No.2 and 3.  

*** 

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. 

1.    The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the 

Constitution  of  India  seeking  issuance  of  a  writ  in  the  nature  of Mandamus 

directing respondents No.1 and 2 to release the retiral benefits of the petitioner. A 

CWP-6487-2001 

2

further  has  been  made  seeking  directions  to  the  respondents  to  refund  the  rent 

amount illegally deducted from the salary of the petitioner.  

CONTENTIONS 

2.     Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner 

was  appointed  as  a  Clerk  in  the  Municipal  Committee,  Palwal  on  05.01.1960. 

Subsequently, he was promoted as Accounts Clerk on 01.07.1961 and thereafter, as 

Assistant  on  09.11.1961.  The  petitioner  applied  to the  post  of  Secretary-cum-

Accountant  in  Municipal  Committee  in  Old  Faridabad i.e.  the  predecessor  of 

respondent  No.2-Municipal  Corporation,  Faridabad  vide  application  dated 

11.03.1966.  He  was  selected  for  the  said  post  vide order  dated  24.10.1966 

(Annexure P-1).  Learned counsel has further submitted that the services of all 

employees,  including  the  petitioner,  from  various  Municipal  Committees  were 

taken  over  by  the  Faridabad  Complex  Administration,  another  predecessor  of 

respondent  No.2  on  15.01.1972.  Accordingly,  the  post  of  the  petitioner  was 

equated with that of Zonal Taxation Officer w.e.f. 01.09.1972 and he was placed at 

serial No.1 in the seniority list vide order dated 02.11.1972 (Annexure P-3). The 

petitioner was granted a special allowance of Rs.75/- per month to compensate him 

for the loss incurred by him due to the posts being equated. However, the said 

special  allowance  was  stopped  w.e.f.  06.08.1974  vide  order  dated  23.08.1974 

(Annexure P-4) and the petitioner was allotted residential accommodation free of 

rent instead.  

3.    Learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  has  further contended  that  the 

petitioner retired as Zonal Taxation Officer on 30.06.1993. However, in order to 

settle  personal  scores,  the  petitioner  was  suspended  from  service  twice  i.e.  on 

29.11.1989 and 29.04.1991, on the same allegations, along with two other Zonal 

Taxation  Officers.  He  emphasized  that  the  petitioner  was  reinstated  vide  order 

CWP-6487-2001 

3

dated 18.06.1990 and 01.10.1991, respectively, without prejudice to the inquiry. 

The petitioner was also issued two charge sheets dated 07.12.1989 and 19.06.1991 

on  the  same  allegation  of  fabrication  of  house  tax survey  of  unconstructed 

buildings  and  thereby,  providing  undue  benefits  to certain  persons.  Learned 

counsel  has  further  submitted  that  the  inquiry  pertaining  to  charge  sheet  dated 

07.12.1989 was conducted on three dates- 06.03.1990, 10.08.1990 and 20.09.1990. 

Thereafter, the issue was virtually dropped as the inquiry was not carried forward. 

However, in furtherance of the second charge sheet dated 19.06.1991, inquiry was 

held  on  16  different  dates  but  was  never  concluded.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the 

petitioner was never associated with the inquiry after his retirement on 30.06.1993. 

Additionally, an independent inquiry was also entrusted to the Deputy Secretary 

namely V.G. Goyal, on the same allegations and the petitioner was only asked to 

participate  in  the  first  week  of  November,  1991.  Learned  counsel  has  also 

submitted  that  criminal  proceedings  were  also  initiated  by  the  Vigilance 

Department of respondent No.1 by registering FIR No.8 dated 20.02.1991 under 

Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC on the same allegations. However, the 

petitioner was acquitted from the charges framed against him vide judgment dated 

15.12.1997 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad. The intentional 

harassment caused to the petitioner is palpable as he has been subjected to three 

departmental inquiries and one vigilance inquiry culminating into a criminal case, 

on the same set of allegations. Moreover, some of the co-delinquents have been 

exonerated while some others have only been issued a warning. In fact, some of 

the delinquents namely S.S. Arora, Harbans Chhabra and Rajendar have also been 

granted promotions. 

4.     The retirement order dated 28.06.1993 (Annexure P-5) clearly states 

that the petitioner is retiring without any prejudice to the departmental inquiries or 

CWP-6487-2001 

4

the criminal proceedings, however, his retiral benefits are being withheld on the 

grounds of pending disciplinary proceedings. Learned counsel submitted that the 

respondents ought not to be allowed to take shelter of their laxity in concluding the 

disciplinary proceedings and claim their false entitlement to conclusion of the same 

after a lapse of about 08 years. Further, the petitioner requested payment of retiral 

benefits  vide  letter  dated  09.12.1994  (Annexure  P-6)  and  multiple  subsequent 

letters  which  separately  requested  for  payment  of  leave  encashment,  provident 

fund and gratuity. Vide letter dated 16.12.1994, respondent-Corporation reported a 

balance  of  Rs.67,573.19/-  and  thereafter,  made  a  part  payment  of  Rs.60,000/- 

towards provident fund through cheque No.121001 dated 20.12.1994. However, 

Rs.35,164/-  still  remain  in  the  provident  fund  account  of  the  petitioner.  Upon 

multiple representations, the respondent-Corporation sought No Dues Certificates 

from various departments with respect to the petitioner. A total of 11 departments 

granted their respective No Dues Certificates except for the Accounts Department. 

The  Accounts  Department  noted  that  a  temporary  advance  of  Rs.24,68,617.76/- 

was issued in the name of the petitioner for purchase of various articles for the 

respondent-Corporation, as the purchase officer and the same is yet to be adjusted 

as  per  the  R-12  register.  The  unadjusted  amount  was  earlier  shown  as 

Rs.12,26,873.37/- but has now been reported as Rs.24,68,617.76/-. Further still, the 

petitioner  was  the  member  Secretary  of  the  Purchase  Committee,  which  also 

consisted  of  a  Chairman  (i.e.  Administrator  NIT),  respondent  No.3-Finance 

Controller  and  Head  of  the  Department.  After  the  requisite  purchase,  all  the 

necessary  vouchers  were  provided  to  the  Accounts  Department,  headed  by 

respondent No.3. Thus, the petitioner cannot be reasonable expected to show the 

vouchers  post-retirement  particularly  when  the  Accounts  Department  is  the 

custodian of the record. No amount remains outstanding against the petitioner as 

all  advances,  including  Register  R-12,  have  been  duly  audited  by  the  Audit 

CWP-6487-2001 

5

Department  of  Government  of  Haryana.    However,  out of  personal  vendetta, 

respondent No.3 gave an oral objection that all adjusted advances must be signed 

by only the Deputy Director of the local Audit Department, while in multiple cases 

advances signed by other officers have been admitted.  

5.    Learned counsel has further argued that files are also not traceable in 

the Accounts Department as there neither exist a record-keeper nor a record room. 

Thus, all old records are in a state of disarray in the Accounts Department and as 

held  by  the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  in State of Kerala vs. M. Padmanabhan

Nayyar 1985(1) SCC 429, the concerned department would be liable for delay in 

production  of  non-liability  certificate  as  the  retired  employee  has  no  concern 

therewith post-retirement. Furthermore, other employees like K.G. Samastam and 

A.S.  Pundlik  who  have  been  paid  retiral  benefits  in  spite  of  large  sums  of 

outstanding and unadjusted money against their name. Learned counsel submitted 

that retiral benefits are not in the nature of bounty, rather it is property in terms of 

Article 300-A of the Constitution, earned by the employee after rendering long 

years of service. Thus, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his rightful entitlement 

in such an arbitrary fashion. Lastly, he submitted that the was granted residential 

accommodation  free  of  rent  in  lieu  of  the  stoppage of  the  special  allowances 

granted  to  him;  therefore,  the  amount  of  Rs.18,746/-  deducted  for  rent,  in 

contravention of order dated 23.08.1974 (Annexure P-4), ought to be refunded to 

the petitioner as well.  

6.    Per contra learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 has submitted 

that  the  two  charge  sheets  issued  to  the  petitioner  have  been  clubbed  as  they 

pertained to the same allegations, and the inquiry remained pending due to frequent 

transfers of Inquiry Officers. Further, last pay or leave salary prior to retirement 

ought not to be paid to a retiring employee if he has any outstanding dues to the 

CWP-6487-2001 

6

Government, as stated by Rule 6.16-A of the Civil Service Rules and, Rule 2.12(B) 

allows  recovery  to  be  made  from  the  gratuity  sanctioned  to  the  retiree.  The 

petitioner  being  the  Purchase  Officer  was  responsible  to  submit  the  adjustment 

case to the Accounts Department, since he failed to do so, the outstanding amount 

could not be adjusted from the Audit Department headed by the Deputy Director, 

the  competent  authority  for  such  adjustment.  Additionally,  only  the  adjustment 

vouchers can be considered as authentic proof of adjustment of advance and not 

Register R-12. As far as the rent deduction is concerned, the Audit Department had 

raised an objection to order dated 23.08.1974 (Annexure P-4) and thus, the same 

could  not  be  implemented.  Resultantly,  rent  was  deducted  and  recovery  of  the 

same for the period effective 01.09.1972 was effected from the petitioner, to which 

he did not object.  

7.    In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no letter 

or order has been passed clubbing the two charge sheets, which admittedly, pertain 

to the same matter. The petitioner had filed another writ petition before this Court 

bearing CWP No.6362 of 2001 praying for the said charge sheets to be quashed 

and  seeking  payment  of  salary  for  the  suspension  period.  Vide  judgment  dated 

15.09.2003 (Annexure P-21), this Court allowed the said writ petition and quashed 

the aforesaid charge sheets. Further, it was directed that all retiral benefits as well 

as salary and allowances pertaining to suspension period, if found due, be paid to 

the petitioner in 03 months. In compliance thereof, the petitioner has been paid 

2/3

rd

 of pension, leave encashment and gratuity. The remaining 1/3

rd

 of his retiral 

benefits have been withheld by respondent-Corporation citing that 52 temporary 

advances  spent  on  purchase  of  articles  are  yet  to  be  adjusted.  Learned  counsel 

argued that deductions from pension can only be made if the employee has been 

found guilty in any disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. Since no such 

CWP-6487-2001 

7

finding  has  been  rendered,  the  retaining  of  1/3

rd

  of  his  retiral  benefits  and 

deduction of Rs.2,03,884/- from the 2/3

rd

 already paid to the petitioner is arbitrary 

and illegal. The petitioner, a senior citizen, was forced to provide an undertaking 

on  08.09.2015  that  he  will  cooperate  in  adjustment of  all  advances  within  06 

months or else the outstanding amount may be deducted from his pension, in order 

to  have  his  retiral  benefits  including  arrears  of  1/3

rd

  portion  pending  since 

01.07.1993. However, instead of releasing the balance amount pertaining to retiral 

benefits, the pension of the petitioner was stopped from June, 2016 to February, 

2018,  totalling  to  a  sum  of  Rs.7,13,856/-,  in  the  name  of  adjustment  of  the 

outstanding temporary advances. 

8.    Learned  counsel  for  respondents  No.2  and  3  has referred  to  the 

affidavit  dated  17.02.2020  of  the  Officer-in-Charge,  Accounts,  Municipal 

Corporation,  Faridabad  to  submit  that  all  retiral  benefits  have  been  paid  to  the 

petitioner. The pension of the petitioner was stopped from June, 2016 in view of 

the undertaking dated 08.09.2015 as he failed to adjust amount of Rs.5,74,840/- 

against temporary advances. The petitioner was duly informed of the same vide 

letter  dated  03.02.2017  (Annexure  A-1).  Thereafter,  the  petitioner  sent  a  letter 

dated 24.01.2018 (Annexure A-2) to the respondent-Corporation requesting release 

of  balance  amount  after  deducting  the  temporary  advances  as  well  as  initiate 

payment of monthly pension. Thus, in August, 2018, Rs.90,093/- was paid to the 

petitioner after deducting temporary  advance  of  Rs.5,74,890/-  and,  Rs. 48,873/- 

due  to  an  audit  objection.  However,  Rs.48,873/-  was  refunded  to  him  on 

05.09.2018  after  removal  of  the  audit  objection.  As  such,  Rs.47,796/-  were 

deducted  from  the  pension  of  the  petitioner  w.e.f. January,  2004  to  November, 

2005 and, Rs.5,74,890/- upon receipt of letter dated 24.01.2018 (Annexure A-2). 

The petitioner is being paid monthly pension regularly since March, 2018.  

CWP-6487-2001 

8

OBSERVATION AND ANALYSIS 

9.    Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the 

record with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner has been running 

from  pillar  to post  for grant  of his  retiral benefits in  its  entirety  since his  very 

retirement on 30.06.1993. It had been the stance of respondents No.2 and 3 that the 

retiral  benefits  were  kept  on  hold  due  to  the  on-going  disciplinary  proceedings 

against the petitioner. Curiously, the respondent-Corporation has claimed that the 

two charge sheets issued to the petitioner were clubbed as they pertain to the same 

set  of  allegations.  No  mention  has  been  made  to  the  independent  inquiry  also 

initiated  against  him.  Further,  a  vigilance  inquiry  was  also  made  on  these 

allegations,  resulting  in  registration  of  FIR  (supra)  wherein  the  petitioner  was 

acquitted.  While  the  departmental  proceedings  can  continue  independent  of 

criminal proceedings, it is baffling as to how these disciplinary proceedings were 

kept hanging upon the head of the petitioner, a man in his sunset years, like the 

sword of Damocles. In doing so, not only was the petitioner subjected to mental 

harassment but he was also deprived of his statutory right to retiral benefits. More 

so, these disciplinary proceedings never attained finality even after a decade since 

their initiation. The petitioner was forced to approach this Court by filing CWP

No.6362 of 2001 titled as ‘D.C. Tanwar vs. State of Haryana and others’ wherein 

both  the  said  charge  sheets  were  quashed  vide  judgment  dated  15.09.2003 

(Annexure P-21) owing to the substantial delay in conclusion of the disciplinary 

action. 

10.    In purported compliance of the judgment dated 15.09.2003 (Annexure 

P-21), the respondents No.2 and 3 released 2/3

rd

 of the pension, leave and gratuity 

of  the  petitioner,  respectively.  The  remaining  1/3

rd

  of  the  retiral  amount  was 

withheld on the ground that certain temporary advances granted in the name of the 

CWP-6487-2001 

9

petitioner,  were  yet  to  be  adjusted.  A  perusal  of  Annexure  P-22  (colly.)  would 

indicate that vide letter dated 04.05.2000, it was admitted by the relevant officer of 

the  Accounts  Department  that  no  amount  remains  outstanding  against  the 

petitioner.  Further, the correspondence dated 25.09.2003 from the office of the 

Commissioner and 15.10.2003 from the Joint Director (Audit) indicates that the 

retiral benefits of the petitioner were withheld only due to paper formalities. The 

relevant parts are reproduced below: 

“I do not agree with the report of FC. JD(A) personally took into the

matter to settle the issue. I do not think that any officer can embezzle

the amount and the office should sit silent for 10 long years. It

appears only paper formalities need to be completed. I fear that in

case we do not make the payment of the petitioner the Hon’ble High

Court may impose interest on the payments.

Sd/$ 25.9.2003

Commissioner”

“….Sh. D.C. Tanwar, Retd. Z.T.O. has submitted a letter dated 4.9.03

in the office of the Municipal Corporation wherein he has supplied

details of the Temporary Advances worth Rs.19,82,931.82

outstanding against him for which he had rendered adjustment

accounts in the Accounts Branch. Whereas, the Accounts Branch has

shown a sum of Rs.23,13,059.34 outstanding as Temporary advance

against him. The difference in temporary advances worth Rs.

3,30,127.52 was nowhere maintained by the than Zonal and Taxation

Officer for which, he should be informed accordingly to submit

requisite adjustment account without further delay.

Sh. D.C. Tanwar, Retd. Z.T.O. in the letter referred to above has

stated that Temporary Advances worth Rs.3,61,928.83 has been got

adjusted and vouchers submitted in the Accounts Branch. On

verification it was noticed that a sum of Rs. 4,70,179.75 including the

amount of Rs. 3,61,928.83 stated by him has already been shown

adjusted in the Register R$12 of Municipal Corporation Faridabad.

This much action of the Accounts Branch may also be informed to

Z.T.O. (Retd.).

The Retd. Z.T.O. has also stated that amount of advances of

Rs.15,979.70 and 64,977.70 was got refunded from the Firms and was

deposited into the FCA Fund. This amount has also been verified and

found adjusted in the R$12 Register.

CWP-6487-2001 

10

Further the Retd. Officer has stated that a sum of Rs. 15,40,035.59

was shown adjusted in the Register R$12 under the signature of

Auditor or Resident Senior Auditor of the Audit Branch. In this

connection, it was decided by the Director, Local Audit, Haryana,

Chandigarh, on an enquiry report submitted by a team of Officers of

the Finance Deptt. consisting of member the Chief Accounts

Officer, Senior Accounts Officer and Accounts Officer that all such

adjustments made at the level of Senior Auditor and Auditor should

be reviewed by Deputy Director/Joint Director (Audit) and adjusted

if found correct after application of Rules and Regulations. All such

entries of advances in R;12 should also be authenticated by

Financial Controller being Incharge of the Accounts Branch. It is,

thus requested that the concerned Retd. Z.T.O. may please be

requested to put up relevant papers if in his custody to the Joint

Director (Audit) for verification and adjustment.

Sd/$15.10.2003

Joint Director (Audit)”

11.    It is evident that relevant authorities were aware of the fact that the 

retiral dues of the petitioner have remained pending for an inordinately long time. 

However, in spite of this knowledge, no substantial efforts were made to expedite 

the process. This Court also finds merit in the argument put forth on behalf of the 

petitioner that the Accounts Department is the official custodian of records of the 

respondent-Corporation.  However,  no  responsibility has  been  assumed  by  the 

respondent-Corporation regarding its duty to process pensionary claims of retired 

employees in a timely manner. The administrative apathy is so pervasive that in 

spite of legal battle that lasted decades, the petitioner was made to give in and 

submit an undertaking dated 08.09.2015 agreeing for the outstanding amount to be 

deducted from his pension if the adjustments are not cleared within 06 months, 

even though he was the one deprived of his legal entitlements. Further, it was only 

when the respondent-Corporation stopped his pension w.e.f. June, 2016 that the 

petitioner  sent  letter  dated  24.01.2018  (Annexure  A-2)  agreeing  to  have 

Rs.5,74,840/-, as shown pending due to non-adjustment of temporary advances, 

CWP-6487-2001 

11

deducted  from  his  pension,  so  his  monthly  pension  is  resumed.  This  Court  in 

Ranjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and others in CWP;28761 of 2025 decided on

25.09.2025 has deprecated such arm-twisting tactics and unequivocally held that 

the employees cannot be deprived of their statutory rights by obtaining exploitative 

undertakings from them under duress.  

12.     Since  the  adjustments  could  not  be  approved  within  the  stipulated 

time, the pension of the petitioner was stopped from June, 2016 and the same was 

only resumed in March, 2018 upon him sending a letter (Annexure A-2) requesting 

the  respondent-Corporation  to  reinstate  his  monthly  pension  after  making  the 

deductions towards temporary advances. As  mention on Page 3 of the affidavit 

dated 17.02.2020, the following calculation was made: 

“Total Pension June 2016 to Feb. 2018 Rs.7,13,856/$

Less; Deduction of temporary advance Rs.5,74,890/$

Less as per Audit Objection Rs.48,873/$

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Rs. 90,003/$ paid in Aug. 2018”

13.    Curiously, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 have quoted 

the  ‘Civil  Service  Rules’  to  claim  that  as  per  Rule  6.16-A,  the  respondent-

Corporation  was  entitled  to  withhold  the  last  pay  and  leave  salary  if  any  dues 

remain outstanding and per Rule 2.2(b), deductions can be made from the pension 

of a retiree. While the relevant rules were not provided by learned counsel and 

neither have they been reproduced in the paper book, the Rules available on the 

website  of  Finance  Department,  Government  of  Haryana  were  perused  and  the 

relevant provisions are reproduced below: 

CWP-6487-2001 

12

“Rule 2.2

xxx xxx xxx

(b) The Government further reserve to themselves the right of

withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether

permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the

recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss

caused to Government, if the pensioner is found in departmental or

judicial proceedings, to have been guilty of grave misconduct or to

have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or

negligence, during his service including service rendered on

reemployment after retirement.

(1) such departmental proceedings, if instituted while the

officer was in service whether before his retirement or during

his re$employment shall after the final retirement of the officer,

be deemed to be a proceeding under this rule and shall be

continued and concluded by the authority by which it was

commenced in the same manner and as if the officer had

continued in service,

(2) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the

officer was on duty either before retirement or during re$

employment─

(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the

Government;

(ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not

more than four years before the institution of such

proceedings; and

(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and at such

place or places as the Government may direct and in

accordance with the procedure applicable to

departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal

from service could be made;

(3) such judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the officer

was on duty either before his retirement or during his re$

employment, shall be instituted in respect of an event as is

mentioned in clause (ii) of proviso (2); and

(4) The Public Service Commission shall be consulted before

final orders are passed.

Explanation.─ For the purpose of this rule:$

(1) Departmental proceedings shall be deemed to have

been instituted when the charges framed against the

CWP-6487-2001 

13

pensioner are issued to him or, if the officer has been

placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such

date; and

(2) Judicial proceedings shall be deemed to have been

instituted─

(i) in the case of criminal proceeding, on the date

on which the complaint is made or a challan is

submitted to a criminal court; and

(ii) in the case of civil proceeding, on the date on

which the plaint is presented or, as the case may

be, an application is made to civil court.

Note 1.─ As soon as proceedings of the nature referred to in

the above rule are instituted, the authority which institutes such

proceedings should without delay intimate the fact to the

Accountant General.

Note 2.─ In a case in which a pension as such is not withheld

or withdrawn, but the amount of any pecuniary loss caused to

Government is ordered to be recovered from the pension, the

recovery should not ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding

one$third of the gross pension originally sanctioned including

any amount which may have been commuted.

Rule 6.16;A

xxx xxx xxx

(6) The Government will have the right to effect recoveries from a

gratuity sanctioned under this rule, in the same circumstances as

recovery can be effected from an ordinary pension under rule 2.2(b).”

(Emphasis added)

14.    A perusal of the aforementioned provision provides that pension and 

gratuity can only be withheld or recoveries can be made therefrom if the retiree is 

found guilty of misconduct in departmental or judicial proceedings. Admittedly, 

for the allegations regarding fabrication of house tax survey, the petitioner was 

acquitted in FIR (supra) and the departmental proceedings were stuck at the stage 

of inquiry for decades in both the charge sheets, which were allegedly clubbed 

though no supporting document has been provided to indicate the same. Further, 

no  charge  sheet  was  ever  issued  to  the  petitioner  regarding  the  alleged 

CWP-6487-2001 

14

misappropriation of funds  with  respect to  the temporary  advances  issued in his 

name. As such, a conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct or that he 

had  caused  pecuniary  loss  to  his  employer  was  never  recorded  in  any  official 

document pertaining to disciplinary action. If the respondents were of the view that 

the  petitioner  has  engaged  in  embezzlement  of  the  temporary  advances,  there 

existed  reason  to  inquire  into  it  after  following  the  due  procedure.  However, 

without actually moving forward with disciplinary action against the petitioner to 

prove that pecuniary loss has been caused to the respondent-Corporation owing to 

his  misconduct  or  negligence,  the  respondents  have mechanically  withheld  his 

retiral benefits for want of records. The respondent-Corporation cannot be allowed 

to colour this matter as a clerical issue where the delay was caused by lack of paper 

work while also questioning bona fide of the petitioner without even attempting to 

inquire  into  it.  Additionally,  no  provision  has  been  indicated  under  which  the 

Provident Fund of the petitioner was withheld. 

15.    The act and conduct of respondents No.2 and 3 is indicative of mala

fide, which  is  further  buttressed  by  the  orders  passed  by  the  Commissioner,  as 

available at Annexure P-22 (colly); the same is reproduced below: 

“The accounts of all such 52 Advances (as mentioned in

file/were got prepared, checked in Accounts Br. and finally sent to

Audit Branch for further scrutiny. This revealed that it is quite

believable that Accounts Branch must had adopted proper procedure

of verifying stock entries of materials on lowest rates duly allowed by

Ld. C.M.C. and bills were finally checked by Auditors/RSA and most

of them finally signed by the Dy. Director (as that time, the Head of

Audit Br.) but this does not mean that these advances could be treated

as unadjusted or not rendered but for admittance by Head of Audit Br.

was the only lapse in it. Thus the accounts rendered and got adjusted

upto Auditor/RSA level may either be got traced out for re$check in

Audit Branch from J.D. (Audit) or F.C. may certify on the basis of his

witnessed adjustments made in R$12 register(s) that advances were

got adjusted and such certificate duly countersigned by the Ld. CMC

should be sufficient to believe in Audit that these adjustments were

CWP-6487-2001 

15

given/recorded but administratively could not be got checked.

Moreso, the deduction of Rs.3,52,290/09 (may be in the shape of

with held money) out of Mr. Tanwar's retiral benefits was really an

unjust step of Accounts Branch who could not get his paper work

completed upto Audit level as well as that time and now those

adjustments accounts are stated to be untraceable just to motivate

and fabricate the move to hence humiliate and harass an individual

but for own lapses.

In my opinion, AO/FC may please furnish a certificate in the

following form to complete the paper formality in Financial

Transaction/Rules to comply with the laid down procedure and

Corporation Secretary, the authorized Officer to accept the

adjustment accounts of Advances may countersigned the same to treat

all these advances adjusted, though never drawn in cash by Mr.

Tanwar as per record.

“Certified that the accounts of advances of (Rs ____Rs.__________

Rs. _________ & so on) shown as at Sr. Nos._______ of R$12

Registers outstanding advances against Sh. Tanwar, Retd. Z.T.O.

were rendered in Accounts Branch, materials/goods taken to stock

on payment of lowest rates duly checked by Auditor/RSA out of these

advances & properly checked in accordance with the laid down

procedure & found in order.” “Thus, no advance is outstanding

against Mr. Tanwar pl.”

AO/FC

I have gone through the record and witness and countersigned the

above facts.

Corporation Secretary

Only this alternative could be possible to give natural justice to Sh.

Tanwar or FC should prove that these advances were given to Mr.

Tanwar duly acknowledged by him on the basis of record, pl.

Sd/$23.11.2007

JD(A)

………...

Mr. Tanwar met me today. I called for this file. It is a

shame that my orders dated 6.2.2008, have been lying with FC till

today. This is particularly irresponsible since as early as 11.1.2008 I

had observed that FC is not doing anything to sort out this case. FC

should appreciate that Mr. Tanwar has long retired and cannot pay

any Suvidha Shulak or bribe to FC for getting his dues. If my orders

above are not implemented and a cheque not issued to Mr. Tanwar by

26.8.2008 it shall be presumed that a large number of people who tell

CWP-6487-2001 

16

me that FC does not issue cheques without getting 5% commission are

right.

Sd/$ 22.08.2008

Commissioner”

16.    Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has 

been subjected to harassment by the respondent-Corporation, prima facie due to 

personal  vendetta.  The  conduct  of  the  respondents  No.2  and  3  has  caused 

significant civil consequences to the petitioner as his retiral benefits were released 

in  a  painfully  delayed  fashion  and  without  abiding by  the  principles  of  natural 

justice. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Suresh Pal vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli

Vitran Nigam Limited and others, 2025 SCC Online P&H 2205 has categorically 

held that any quasi-judicial or administrative order leading to civil consequences 

for an employee must be passed by a competent authority, while abiding by the 

principles of natural justice. The relevant extract therefrom is reproduced below: 

"19. ....Sometimes an unjust decision in an administrative enquiry

may have far more serious consequences than a decision in a quasi;

judicial enquiry and hence the principles of natural justice must

apply equally in an administrative enquiry which entails;civil

consequences. Hon'ble Court also referred to decisions in Ridge v.

Baldwin 1964 AC 40, State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei and

others (Supra) and A.K. Kraipak' case (Supra) and it observed that

the net effect of these decisions was that the duty to act judicially need

not be super$added, but it may be spelt out from the nature of the

power conferred, the manner of exercising it and its impact on the

rights of the person affected and where it is found to exist, the rules

of, natural justice would be attracted. It was further observed that the

decisions of the English Courts as followed in India were not the end

of the development of law on this subject. The proliferation of

administrative law provoked considerable fresh thinking on the

subject and soon it came to be recognised that 'fair play in action'

required that in administrative proceeding also, the doctrine of

natural justice must be held to be applicable.

CWP-6487-2001 

17

xxx xxx xxx

42. The law with regard to the decision$making process which has

been noticed in these cases is well established. The doctrine of bias is

based upon the principle that justice should not only be done but

manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done and that the Judges,

like Caesar's wife should be above suspicion. It is now a settled law

that when even an administrative order involving civil consequences

is to be passed, it must be consistent with the principles of natural

justice and should be a well;reasoned order. The procedure adopted

should be just, fair and reasonable so as to be in conformity with

Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

17.    Lastly,  a  perusal  of order  dated  23.08.1974  (Annexure  P-4)  clearly 

conveys that the petitioner was allotted residential accommodation “free of rent” in 

lieu of the stoppage of the special allowance that had been previously granted to 

the petitioner to compensate for the loss suffered by him due to equation of his post 

to  that  of  Zonal  Taxation  Officer  upon  creation  of Faridabad  Complex 

Administration.  The  concerned  respondents  have  claimed  that  the  Audit 

Department had raised an objection to order dated 23.08.1974 (Annexure P-4) and 

thus,  it  could  not  be  implemented.  However,  nothing  has  been  brought  to  the 

record  to  indicate  that  an  order  was  passed  by  the competent  authority  in  this 

regard and that the petitioner was duly informed of the same. The respondents are 

not at liberty to change its own orders per convenience without providing reasons 

justifying  the  same  and  providing  the  affected  employee  an  opportunity  to  be 

heard.  

CONCLUSION 

18.    In view of the discussion above, the present petition is allowed. The 

respondents  are  hereby  directed  to  release  all  pending  retiral  benefits  of  the 

petitioner  to  him  within  a  period  of  02  months  from  the  date  of  receipt  of  a 

CWP-6487-2001 

18

certified copy of this order, along with an interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the 

date of quashing of the charge sheets (supra) till actual realisation. Further, the 

amount  deducted  towards  rent,  in  contravention  of  order  dated  23.08.1974 

(Annexure P-4) also be refunded to the petitioner in the aforementioned stipulated 

time  period  along  with  Rs.5,74,840/-  deducted  from his  pension  in  lieu  of 

adjustment of the temporary advances. 

19.    Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)

JUDGE

01.07.2026

yakub

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No

Whether Reportable. : Yes/No