Gaza Nand v. State Of Punjab And Others
!"#$"%&'&#() (* +,
- . (/ 00"!&!&#("+ 1"+'*'
2! !"#$*(. 3 (/#!4"+' 00"'5#(/"(!'
6) 78602 2 62 2
" #
$ % & 2 62 2 0 8 '
( !
#
#) # * +,&-%./ # # #)
% 0 !) !) 1 1 !) 2!
!) #
+ # !) / 1 !) ! 2!
) %33, ! '+ )
& 4! !) # # ) '--5 ) 1 ! 2
!)
! !) 6! 1
)
, 7 #
2 )
# / 1
)
# )
!/8
# ! )
#
( !
# ! ! ) 1 ) '--5 ) 6! ) %33, $ :
6! 1
;
: ) #) 8=#
!
(
! "
! '% "12. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:!
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class!III and Class! IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."
- # ! # ! ((( (
2
(((
'3 0 ! (( ! '% # $
( ) * +,&-%./
''
0 ! ((( ! '% # $ 1 !) 1 !) ! ! )
( ) 1 !) ! !!1 ) ) # #
'% > # ! # $ !!# '+ # !/8
2
'& ( ) 2
8
)
# ) '--5 2
8
#
'3 ) ! 2
', 0 #
# )
! !)
(
) # : ) ) ! #) !! * '5 ( !! #) 8?#
!
( %&'$$&(
)
& *&+ ,$%- ./ 012$
.
%0 0
)
3
4
) %&'$$&("3 4
"& 2+ && * &/
%5
"
6! 78 8
"
) ! #) ) ! !) #) !!)
! ! #) !) ) + &&* &9 $ / @15. In the present case, even if one assumes that Surender Chaudhary, the accused in the pending criminal case was involved and had sought to indulge in objectionable activities, that ipso facto could not have resulted in unilateral action of the kind which the State resorted to! against Daffodils, which was never granted any opportunity of hearing or a chance to represent against the impugned order. If there is one constant lodestar that lights the judicial horizon in this country, it is this: that no one can be inflicted with an adverse order, without being afforded a minimum opportunity of hearing, and prior intimation of such a move. This principle is too well entrenched
in the legal ethos of this country to be ignored, as the state did, in this case.
16. The High Court, in the opinion of this court, fell into error in holding that in matters of award of public contracts, the scope of inquiry in judicial review is limited. Granted, such jurisdiction is extremely circumscribed; no doubt the court had refused to grant relief to Daffodils against its plea of wrongful rejection of its tender. However, what the impugned judgment clearly overlooks is that the action of the state, not to procure indefinitely, on an assumption of complicity by Daffodils, was in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice." !
*&9 $ / "19. The compliance of natural justice in domestic/disciplinary inquiry is necessary has long been established. This Court has held that even there are no specific statutory rule requiring observance of natural justice, the compliance of natural justice is necessary. Certain ingredients have been held to be constituting integral part of holding of an inquiry. The Apex Court in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Their Workmen reported in (1964) 3 SCR 616 has laid down following:!
"... An enquiry cannot be said to have been properly held unless, (i) the employee proceeded against has been informed clearly of the charges levelled against him, (ii) the witnesses are examined - ordinarily in the presence of the employee - in respect of the charges, (iii) the employee is given a fair opportunity to cross!examine witnesses, (iv) he is given a fair opportunity to examine witnesses including himself in his defence if he so wishes on any relevant matter, and (v) the inquiry officer records his findings with reasons for the same in his report."
'9
!
# !!
! !
!!)
8 * +,&-%./ #
> ! ! 2 ! !) ';
! ! # (* +,
-
2 62 2
harsha A !2 . B.$ A !#
B.$