IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 6263 of 2008 Date of Decision: 22.09.2010 Hem Raj Sharma …Petitioner. Versus. H.P.State Co-operative Bank Ltd. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: None. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) 1. By means of this petition the petitioner has prayed for the grant of the following amongst other reliefs:- 1. That the impugned recovery made from the salary of applicant w.e.f. July 1997 may kindly be declared to be illegal and the respondent Bank may be directed to refund the same with penal interest at market rate from the date the recovery was effected every month from salary of applicant till the same is repaid. 2. That if during the pendency of present application the respondent bank continues with the impugned recovery, such recovery made in future may also be quashed and respondent Bank may be directed to refund the same with penal interest at market rate. 2 2. At the outset, I may mention that this petition was originally filed before the erstwhile Tribunal. Notices were issued to the respondent-bank but none appeared on behalf of the respondent. Thereafter, on the abolition of the Tribunal this matter was transferred to this Court in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Transfer of Decided and Pending Cases and Applications) Act, 2008 and registered as CWP(T) No.6263 of 2008. Thereafter, actual date notice was issued to the respondent on 2.8.2010. Despite service of such notice on 31.8.2010 none has appeared on behalf of the respondent- bank. 3. The allegation of the petitioner is that the bank had to recovery some amount from one Shri M.S.Jamwal and his guarantors and an arbitration award had been passed against the three persons. It, however, appears that somebody in the bank decided that the petitioner was responsible for the non-payment of this amount and therefore, a sum of Rs.1000/- was deducted from the salary of the petitioner for the first time in the month of July, 1996. The petitioner immediately made a representation that this deduction was totally illegal. However, the 3 deduction continued every month. In fact, in later months the amount being recovered was enhanced. On the representations of the petitioner dated 26.7.1996 and 29.11.1996 a letter was sent to him by the Assistant General Manager (Establishment) of the respondent bank on 28.4.1997 that the law branch had sent him an intimation on 10.4.1996 that such deduction has to be made from the salary of the petitioner. On 21.5.1997 the petitioner again made a representation and stated that he had not received any communication from the law branch as alleged and he also stated that he was never heard before passing such an order. He continued to make representations but to no avail. Finally he made a representation to the Registrar, Cooperative Society who rejected it on the ground that such a representation was not maintainable before him. Thereafter, the petitioner filed this original application before the erstwhile Tribunal which has been transferred to this Court. 4. From the allegations made in the petition which stands uncontroverted it is apparent that the petitioner was not given any notice nor was he given any hearing before ordering deduction from his 4 salary. Therefore, the order of deduction is totally illegal and the same is accordingly set-aside. 5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and it is directed that the entire amount recovered from the salary of the petitioner as aforesaid shall be repaid to him alongwith interest @ 9% per annum and such amount shall be paid to him within three months of the petitioner producing a certified copy of this order before the respondent-bank. In case the amount is not paid within three months then the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @12% per annum. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. 22nd September, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.