Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWPOA/12235/2008 on 29 December 2011
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP(T) No. 12235 of 2008.
Decided on: 29th December, 2010. Subhash Chand Sharma. …Petitioner.
-Versus- The State of H.P. and Others.
…Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Pushpender Kumar, Advocate
vice Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate.
For the respondents. : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Deputy
Advocate General with Mr. R.P.
Singh, Assistant Advocate
General.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral):
Petitioner was appointed as Agriculture Inspector (since re-designated as Agriculture Development Officer). He remained posted in Chamba District w.e.f. 21.09.1977 to 23.08.1980. The internal audit was conducted for the period from 1977-78 to 2003-2004 on accounts of Agriculture inputs of Tissa Block and it was detected that the petitioner has not rendered any accounts of inputs/implements of store articles during his tenure w.e.f. 21.09.1977 to 23.08.1980. Therefore, the decision was taken to effect recoveries from the salary of the petitioner on 18th August, 2005 (Annexure A-1). However, the petitioner was given an opportunity to reconcile.
2. Case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that the incident pertains to his initial tenure w.e.f. 21.09.1977 to 23.08.1980. He has been compulsorily retired. Moreover, the recovery is only amounting to `3257/-. Admittedly, the
1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No.
petitioner has not been issued any show-cause notice before the decision was taken to effect recoveries from the salary of the petitioner amounting to `3257/-. The petitioner ought to have been heard before the decision was taken unilaterally to recover a sum of `3257/- from his salary.
3. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-1, dated 18.08.2005 is quashed and set aside. In normal circumstances, the respondents ought to have been given an opportunity to proceed with the matter in accordance with law, however, taking into consideration that only the recovery of `3257/- is involved and the petitioner has retired from service, the proceedings are closed. No costs.
(Rajiv Sharma)
Judge December 29, 2010. (bhupender)