CWP(T) No. 6558 of 2008 01.09.2010 Present: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No. 3. Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(a) That the action of the respondents vide letter dated 6.10.1999, Annexure A-10, whereby a sum of Rs. 24,150/- on account of refund of Token Tax has been recovered from the DCRG of the applicant, may kindly be held wrong, illegal and may kindly be set aside. (b) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the entire retiral benefits to the applicant alongwith 18% interest w.e.f. 30.6.97 when the such amount fell due to the applicant by the respondents till it is actually paid. (c) That the respondents may further be directed to pay the applicant an amount for 90 days compensatory leave for which the applicant had infact worked with the respondents.” 2. Annexure A-10 reads as under:- To The Director Transport, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-171004. Dated: Shimla-171003. the, 6-10-1999. Subject: C&R reply in respect of Shri Shiv Ram Jr. Asstt. DOR 30.6.97. Sir, In continuation to this office letter of even number dated 3.8.99 on the subject cited above. I am to enclose the No Demand Certificate in respect of Shri Shiv Ram Jr. Asstt. (Retd). You are therefore, requested to kindly release the DCRG in favour of the above retiree after recovering the amount of Rs. 24,150/- on account of refund of token tax. The recovered amount may please be sent to this office. Encl: As above. Yours faithfully, For Managing director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation Shimla-171003.” -2- 3. This Court on 29.6.2010 has passed the following order: “The respondent-Corporation is directed to file a supplementary affidavit to the effect whether any notice was served upon the petitioner before the decision was taken to deduct a sum of Rs. 24,150/- from the D.C.R.G. of the petitioner or not. List on 2nd July, 2010.” 4. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel has placed on record a communication dated 30.7.2010 sent to him by the Regional Manager, HRTC, Nahan. Alongwith the communication there is an undated letter written to the petitioner calling upon him as to why disciplinary action be not taken against him for not depositing the requisite document as also the loss caused to the Corporation amounting to Rs. 24,150/-. These letters are taken on record. 5. From the letter dated 30.7.2010 it is evident that no notice was issued to the petitioner before effecting recovery of Rs. 24,150/-. With regard to the letter issued to the petitioner calling upon him to explain as to whey disciplinary action be not initiated against him petitioner did respond vide Annexure A-5 and based thereupon respondents took disciplinary action against Sh. Amir Chand and Sh. Narinder Singh (Annexure A-6). 6. Admittedly no inquiry proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the respondents straightaway issued the impugned letter directing recovery of the amount in question. There is no doubt that this action of the respondents needs to be quashed for the simple reason that principles of natural justice stand violated. Recovery of amount entails civil consequences. Thus the impugned order dated -3- 6.10.1999 is quashed. However, it shall be open for the respondents to take action against the petitioner, in accordance with law. 7. Petitioner admittedly retired on 30.6.1997 and his retiral benefits were not paid within a reasonable period. There was a shortfall of the sum of Rs. 72,000/- (approximately) which was disbursed only in the month of December, 1999. No explanation for the delay is forthcoming. Consequently petitioner is entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. on the delayed payments. The consequential action be positively taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. September 1, 2010 (PK)