IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 5196/2008 (OA 842/98) Date of Decision : April 24, 2010 Sh. Tajwiz Singh Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. P. M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner was working as a J.B.T. teacher. During the course of his employment certain payments were released to him. That such payments were wrongly released came to be noticed only when the audit party took an objection with regard to the same. In terms of order dated 8.9.1993, recovery of a sum of Rs. 24,542/- was sought to be affected from the petitioner. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Prior to the issuance of this order no sufficient and adequate opportunity of hearing/representation was afforded to him. Recovery entails civil consequences. No doubt petitioner’s representation on record indicates that he was aware and had furnished explanation to the audit objections but this fact by itself would not meet the legal requirement of affording an adequate opportunity of hearing/representation. As on the date when the petitioner made the representation no action for recovering the amount was in contemplation. The petitioner had simply tried to justify his entitlement. Even while passing the impugned order such explanations have not been considered. In fact the order on the basis of which recovery is sought to be made is a three line cryptic order. There are no reasons. In these circumstances action initiated by the respondents cannot be said to be legal. It is violative of the principles of natural justice. Thus office orders dated 8.9.1993 (Annexure A-18) and 10.3.1998 (Annexure A-22) are quashed. 3. Recoveries in this case have already been affected. It is not a case where recoveries have not been affected. Hence the decision rendered by this Court in Vinod Walia versus State of H.P. and others, 2009 (1) Shim. L.C. 399 is not applicable. 4. It shall be open for the respondents/State to issue notice to the petitioner and take a fresh decision in accordance with law. Needless to add not only adequate opportunity of hearing/representation should be afforded to the petitioner 3 but also the order containing reasons shall be communicated to him. 5. With the aforesaid observations the present petition is disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. April 24, 2010 (PK)