IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No: 355 of 1999 Date of decision:22.8.2008 H.P.Khadi & Village Industries Board. ..Petitioner Vs. Prithvi Raj and others ..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice: R. B. Misra, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice: Surjit Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner: Ms. Rita Goswami, Advocate. For respondents 1 to 3: Ms.Leena Guleria, vice Mr. G.R.Palsra, Advocate, Per Surjit Singh,J.(oral) This writ petition by H.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board has been filed for setting aside the order dated 9th November, 1998 passed by learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, whereby allowing O.A. -1713 of 1991, filed by late Geeta Nand Sharma, now represented by his legal representatives Prithvi Raj and others, orders dated 7th June, 1989 and 8th December, 1989 requiring deceased Geeta Ram to make payment of a sum of Rs. 29,495.99 on account of shortages and loss caused by him to the writ petitioner, while serving the writ petitioner as its employee, have been set aside. 1 Whether reporter of local papers is allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2. Relevant facts are that deceased Geeta Ram was employed as a Technician with the writ petitioner. An audit was conducted probably in the year 1989 and the auditor pointed out that deceased Geeta Ram, while working as Technician, at different places under the writ petitioner, was responsible for shortage of stocks to the tune of Rs. 29,495/-. By that time Geeta Ram had retired. A notice was issued, calling upon him, to pay the aforesaid amount of money, failing which he could be prosecuted for criminal offence, his property could be auctioned to recover the money as arrears of land revenue and civil suit could be filed to recover the money. It appears that there was no response from Geeta Ram and consequently, orders were passed for the recovery of the aforesaid amount of money and a sum of Rs. 14,447/- which was due to Geeta Ram, on account of his retiral benefits, was withheld. Geeta Ram challenged withholding of aforesaid amount of money by filing the aforesaid original application before the learned Tribunal. During the pendency of the original application, Geeta Ram died. His legal representatives Prithvi Raj and others, respondents in the present writ petition, came on record, as original applicants. 3. Learned tribunal allowed the original application holding that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 14,447/- had been withheld by the writ petitioner without conducting any inquiry, in accordance with the 3 provisions of CCS(CCA) Rules. It was held that since withholding of money, due to deceased Geeta Ram, amounted to recovery of money on account of loss allegedly occasioned by him, it was in the nature of penalty under Rule 11(3) of the CCS(CCA) Rules and such a penalty could not have been imposed without conducting an inquiry. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the record, particularly the order of the learned tribunal. 5. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner has adopted CCS(CCA) Rules for taking disciplinary action against its employees. Admittedly, withholding of an amount of Rs. 14,447/-, due to deceased Geeta Ram, was in the nature of recovery of money from him on account of alleged loss occasioned by him to the writ petitioner, within the meaning of Rule 11(iii) of the aforesaid rules. The procedure for imposition of this kind of penalty is laid down in Rule 16 of the Rules ibid which inter alia provides for informing the government servant, in writing, of the proposed action to be taken against him, holding of an inquiry in accordance with the procedure laid down in sub rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14, considering the representation, if any, of the delinquent employee and recording of finding on each imputation of misconduct or 4 misbehaviour. In the present case even though it can be said that deceased Geeta Ram was informed in writing of the imputation of misconduct because there is a letter dated 7th June, 1989 which was addressed to him, but a reading of the said letter shows that deceased Geeta Ram had not been informed that action was proposed to be taken against him under the provisions of CCS(CCA) Rules. A perusal of the letter shows that he was informed that in case he did not pay the money found due from him by the auditors, a criminal case will be filed against him or the proceedings for recovery of the money as arrears of land revenue shall be initiated or a civil suit will be filed. No inquiry was conducted nor was any finding recorded on imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour. The auditor’s report about the allegation of occasioning of loss to the writ petitioner by deceased Geeta Ram was taken to be final verdict and treating the same to be so money due to late Geeta Ram was withheld. This action of the petitioner was not only not warranted by the provisions of CCS(CCA) Rules, but was also illegal and contrary to principles of natural justice. Consequently, we find no merit in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. ( R. B. Misra ), J. August 22, 2008(K) ( Surjit Singh ),J.