HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1721 of 2007 (S/S) Hem Chandra Pant & three others ……… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ……… Respondents. Dated:- 01st July, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. U. S. Bhakuni, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned Brief Holder for the State. The petitioners are Class IV employees working in the educational institution. The Incharge Principal deputed them the work of Chaukidars and directed them to do day and night duties at his residence. It transpires that a theft took place at the residence of the Principal and the petitioners themselves lodged a report before the local Patwari. It further transpires that the Principal instituted an inquiry and the inquiry officer submitted a report that since the exact timing of the theft could not be found out, all the four petitioners, who are responsible as Chaukidars, are answerable for the theft. It further transpires that the petitioners gave an undertaking that the loss incurred by the Principal may be recovered from the petitioners and, in the event, the stolen items are recovered, then the amount so recovered may be refunded. Based on the aforesaid undertaking, the petitioners’ salary for the month of November, 2006 was stopped. It further transpires that the stolen articles were subsequently recovered and a request was made to the Principal that the salary of the petitioners for the month of November, 2006 be released since the items have been recovered. Since the same was not done, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the salary of the petitioners for the month of November, 2006. The counter affidavit of District Education Officer reveals that all the petitioners have been punished for the theft that occurred in the 2 residence of the Principal. A vague denial has been made by the respondents with regard to the recovery of the stolen items. In my opinion, once the stolen items have been recovered from another person, the petitioners cannot be held responsible. Further, there is nothing on record to indicate that the loss incurred, if any, was equivalent to four months salary of the petitioners. Since the stolen items have been recovered, the court is of the opinion that the petitioners should be given the salary for the month of November, 2006. In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to release the salary of the petitioners for the month of November, 2006 within four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 01.07.2010 LSR