IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 4176 of 2008. Date of Decision: 26.7.2010 Ms.Shakuntla Verma …Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Petitioner(s): Mr.K.C. Sankhyan, vice counsel for the Petitioner. For the Respondent(s): Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. for Respondents-State. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the order of termination dated 9.1.1997 terminating her services be quashed and that the respondents be directed to return the amount of Rs.73,882.30 illegally collected from her. Brief facts are that the applicant was working as Sales lady in the Cooperative Consumer Store at Chapslee, Longwood, Shimla. According to the petitioner there was a practice that when any sales person went on leave he/she would handover charge to some other employee. The applicant remained on leave intermittently for considerable duration during the period November, 1995 to May, 1996 on account of her ill-health and family problems. During this 2 period, charge of her post was held by some other person. Thereafter, the respondents alleged that there was shortage to the extent of Rs.73, 882.30. An allegation was raised that the petitioner had mis- appropriated the stocks of the HIMFED to this extent. An explanation of the petitioner was also sought. She gave a detailed reply to the explanation and explained the facts of the case. According to the petitioner, in May, 1996, two officers, namely, Y.S. Panta and Anil Kashyap asked her to deposit the amount of Rs.73,882.30 and told her that this amount would be refunded to her in case after re-conciliation it was found that same was not due from her. She deposited this amount. According to the petitioner even though she had deposited the amount on 9.1.1997, the impugned order was passed terminating her services without notice to her and without holding any inquiry. The petitioner, aggrieved by the said order, approached the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.201 of 1997 and the impugned order dated 9th January, 1997 was stayed. As a consequence thereto the petitioner continued to serve the respondents and I have been informed at the Bar that now she has retired. It is apparent that the termination order was passed without following the rules of natural justice and therefore, the petitioner for all intents and purposes shall be deemed to be in service. The order dated 9th January, 1997 is quashed since the respondents did not hold 3 a proper inquiry or gave the petitioner reasonable opportunity for representing herself and also in view of the fact that the petitioner after rendering long service has now retired. However, as far as the refund of money is concerned, this amount has been deposited by the petitioner voluntarily. Though she alleges that she had deposited this amount at the asking of the aforesaid two officials, there is no material on record to support her claim. Even these two officials have not been made parties to the petition. Therefore, her claim for refund of the amount of Rs.73,882.30 is rejected. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. July 26 , 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) PV Judge.