IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No. 6514/2008 Decided on:23.4.2010 _____________________________________________ Dr. Ashu Gupta. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. H.K. Paul, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General . _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). The petitioner was working as Medical Officer (Dental) in Rural Hospital, Karsog since August, 1987. He had been allotted Type-III accommodation in Medical Colony, Karsog. He was sanctioned study leave for two years with effect from 5.2.1992 to 4.2.1995. It was observed by the Audit Party that the petitioner was entitled to retain Government accommodation upto 4.8.1993 and was liable to pay the penal rent thereafter for the unauthorized occupation upto 7.11.1994 @ Rs. 3,738/- per month. He was called upon to pay penal rent amounting to Rs. 56,460/- as per 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 audit para. Consequently, on the basis of audit para, Annexure A-7 dated 25.6.1999 was issued. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was sanctioned study leave and he joined King George Medical College, Lucknow for undergoing MDS course. Mr. H.K. Paul submits that his client, in fact, had handed over the keys on 8.10.1993. However, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner has not been heard before the decision was taken to recover a sum of Rs. 56,460/- from the salary of the petitioner by way of installments as per Annexure A-7 dated 25.6.1999. The respondents have become Judge of their own cause. At least it was expected from the respondents to issue show cause notice to the petitioner to explain his position before the issuance of Annexure A-7 dated 25.6.1999. Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal had stayed the operation of Annexure A-7. It is not disputed by the learned Deputy Advocate General that the petitioner was not heard before the issuance of Annexure A-7. The petitioner has suffered civil and evil consequences. There is violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-7 dated 25.6.1999 is quashed and set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance with law, if limitation permits. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 23.4.2010 *awasthi*