IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 3756/2008 (OA 1290/96) Date of Decision : March 26, 2009 Sh. Bir Singh Negi 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 : Mr. Lokender Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.G. for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 20.11.1995 whereby the Chief Medical Officer Kinnaur at Reckong Peo has directed recovery of Rs. 31,601/- from the petitioner. Petitioner who was working as Chief Pharmacist was entrusted with the charge of medical supplier of District Hospital Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur. During the audit inspection it was discovered that the petitioner had interpolated certain documents and also there was shortage in the stores. Based on the inspection 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 recovery memo dated 5.9.1995 was issued to the petitioner holding that he had been negligent and careless in handling the stores which caused direct loss of Rs. 42,461/- to the State Government. He was asked to deposit the amount. Based on the audit objections the petitioner was asked to furnish his explanation vide letter dated 28.12.1994 (Annexure R-I). The petitioner did reply, but however confined his reply only to such supplies which had been effected to the Ayurvedic Hospital value of which was Rs. 10,933/-. It is so evidence from letter dated 18.9.1995 (Annexure A-2). The same was considered and eventually order dated 20.11.1995 (Annexure A-3) was passed asking the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 31,601/- after ducting amount of Rs. 10,933/-. On 18.9.1996, in the present petition the recovery was stayed and the interim order is in operation till date. The petitioner is governed by service conditions, Rules and regulations. CCS (CCA) Rules are applicable to him. In the present case there is no doubt that preliminary inquiry based on audit objections was carried out but however it is not under the CCS (CCA) Rules. Before fixing the liability it was incumbent upon the authorities to have initiated proceedings in consonance with the said Rules and only after holding a complete inquiry, action for recovery or other disciplinary action could have been taken. As a consequence the respondents are restrained from recovering an amount of Rs. 31,601/-. 3 However, it shall be open for the respondents to institute a proper inquiry in consonance with the Rules as also the principles of natural justice. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the said inquiry. The matter pertains to the year 1995 hence the inquiry be completed and the disciplinary action taken within a period of four months from today. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. March 26, 2009 (PK)