JUDGMENT By the Corut.—Petitioner, Dhirendra Kumar retired accountant, who has been posted at Regional Officer, Bareilly is before this Court with a request to quash the order dated 7.7.2008 passed by the Chief General Manager (Commercial) U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Limited, U.P. Lucknow wherein from the post retirement benefit of the petitioner, various deduction has been directed to be made. 2. From the record, it is reflected that petitioner has been subjected to regular departmental proceeding and in the said regular departmental proceeding that has been so undertaken, final punishment order was passed on 26.11.2005 and the Managing Director at the said point of time has proceeded to impose punishment of censor entry and put for subsistence allowance, on the Principle of ‘no work no pay’, order has been passed that petitioner is not entitled for any other payment. 3. Peculiar characteristic of the said order as mentioned in paragraph No. 3 is that losses have been caused to the Corporation and in case any claim is filed by the Sunil Kumar son of Ram Prakash, complainant or other and adverse orders are passed, then at the said point of time, as to what would be financial liability of petitioner, decision would be taken. 4. Submission of the petitioner is that at no point of time any punishment order has been passed for effectuating recovery from the petitioner for the losses, if any, having been caused and in case any financial liability was to be fastened against the Corporation, then at the said point of time, financial liability was to be determined. Petitioner has come up with the specific case that after the said order has been passed by the Managing Director of Corporation dated 26.11.2005, neither from any Court, nor from any appropriate forum, any financial liability has been saddled/fastened against the petitioner in view of Condition No. 3 of the order dated 26.11.2005 as such no recovery can be effectuated, as has been sought to be done in the present case. 5. 5. To the said challenge, which has been made, counter-affidavit has been filed and therein action taken has been sought to be justified as (I) It has been contended that as far as first recovery part is concerned, that chapter stands closed vide order dated 29.6.2004 as at no point of time said order has ever been challenged and said recovery order has attained finality and as such co-lateral challenge of such order cannot be accepted. (ii) Loss has been caused, as admittedly payment has been made to a fake incumbent and as such this Court should not come to the rescue and reprieve of the petitioner. 6. To the counter-affidavit, rejoinder-affidavit has been filed disputing the averment mentioned in the counter-affidavit and reiterating that of writ petition. 7. After pleading has been exchanged between the parties, thereafter present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing/disposal with the consent of the parties. 8. Sri Shakti Swarup Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case proceedingd initiated against the petitioner for recovery of the amount are not at all subscribed by law and as such this Court should come to the rescue and reprieve of the petitioner. 9. Sri Shrikant Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that rightful action has been taken in the matter and accordingly once losses are there, Corporation is fully competent/entitled to effectuate recovery proceeding, in view of same, this Court should not come to the rescue of the petitioner. 10. In order to appreciate respective argument, what we find from the impugned order of recovery that has been sought to be effectuated (i) First recovery that has been sought to be effectuated is in reference of certain payment, which was to be made by the petitioner to different persons to be deposited in the State Bank of Patilya, District Bareilly, and in the said direction, on account of same not being timely done there has been loss to a tune of Rs. 01,34,288=00, petitioner is responsible for the same and said amount has been debited and said order has not at all been questioned before any Court and same has attained finality. 01,34,288=00, petitioner is responsible for the same and said amount has been debited and said order has not at all been questioned before any Court and same has attained finality. Once said amount has been imposed against the petitioner, same is to be recovered from the petitioner, then said part of the order cannot be faulted and has to be accepted as final and said amount can be recovered (ii) As far as second part of recovery is concern, said part of recovery cannot be subscribed under law for the simple reason that once charge-sheet has been issued and final order of punishment has been passed and in the said punishment order, at no point of time financial liability has ever been determined, rather it was a contingent order that in case financial liability is determined by any competent Court/authority, then financial liability can be imposed and no such contingency ever occurred, then such action cannot be subscribed, accordingly as far as second part of the order is concern, 1/3rd of the amount that has been sought to be recovered, cannot be approved of by us. 11. Consequently, present writ petition is partly allowed. Respondents shall ensure payment of balance amount, preferably within period of next three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Appropriate decision be taken in respect of awarding of statutory interest,if, any, as admissible in accordance with law on delayed payment. No order as to cost. ———————