IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 881/2008 Decided on:22.11.2011 _____________________________________________ Vikram Singh Panwar …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. S.K. Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in the respondent-Department on 1.12.1972. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in the year 2005. He retired as Assistant Engineer on 31.3.2008. Respondents have ordered to deduct a sum of ` 97,692/- from the gratuity of the petitioner. The ground for deducting a sum of ` 97,692/- as per the reply filed by the respondents is the audit objections, raised for the year 1989-1990. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2. There is a considerable delay in dealing with the audit para and in reconciling the amount. According to Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General, the delay has been caused due to prolonged correspondence entered into between various functionaries of the Department. He has also drawn the attention of the Court to report Annexure R-16 dated 30.5.2007 prepared by the Executive Engineer (D) 4th Circle, HPPWD, Shimla. Petitioner has not been supplied with this report. He had prayed for the copy of the report as per letter dated 18.2.2008 (Annexure R- 17). Mr. Vikas Rathore has also submitted that the petitioner had undertaken to pay the amount as per Annexure R-18 dated 22.2.2008 and Annexure R-22. 3. The fact of the matter is that the amount due was to be adjudicated upon by the respondents in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner. In the instant case, the respondent-department has become judge of its own cause and the petitioner has been condemned unheard. No regular inquiry was ever conducted against the petitioner to ascertain the amount due from the petitioner. A sum of ` 97,692/- has been ordered to be deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner. ‘No demand’ certificate was issued by the 3 competent authority on 19.2.2008. Recovery could not be effected on the basis of audit para. What was meant by the petitioner in Annexure R-18 dated 22.2.2008 and R-22 was that that amount due was to be ascertained in accordance with law and thereafter, recovery, if any could be effected. He had never agreed that without holding regular inquiry, a sum of ` 97,692/- could be deducted from his gratuity amount, as argued by Mr. Vikas Rathore. The matter has remained pending for 18 years. It ought to have been reconciled at the earliest to mitigate the hardship faced by the petitioner. 4. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure P-1 dated 20.3.2008 is quashed and set aside. Consequence shall ensue. There shall, however, no order as to costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 22.11.2011 *awasthi*