IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 647 of 2008. Reserved on: 9.05.2011. Decided on: 13.05.2011. ________________________________________________ Nain Singh. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Gautam, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner retired after attaining the age of superannuation as Deputy Ranger on 30th November, 2003. However, a sum of ` 45,905/- was withheld from the Death-cum- Retirement Gratuity of the petitioner. 2. Mr. R.S. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the action of the respondents of withholding 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - of a sum of ` 45,905/- from the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, thus violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He then contended that his client has been exonerated of the charges by the Inquiry Officer. 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General submits that a sum of ` 45,905/- was only withheld due to the pendency of inquiry against the petitioner. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Respondent-State was directed to disclose the status of inquiry initiated against the petitioner. The learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record the copy of letter dated 5th July, 2010. It is evident from the contents of letter dated 5th July, 2010 that the Inquiry Officer has given a finding that the petitioner alone could not be held responsible except there was negligence by the petitioner that he failed to seize the Government property. Statement of petitioner was also recorded by the Range Forest Officer while holding the inquiry. Petitioner was posted as Forest Guard in Pallu Beat (Habban Range). He has handed over the charge when he was transferred from Pallu Beat. He has submitted the documents/damage reports to the Divisional Forest Officer through the office of Block Range Officer. He had no jurisdiction to compound the same. He could only bring the same to the notice of higher authorities through the office of Block Range Officer concerned. In view of this, the petitioner cannot be faulted in any manner as argued by Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned - 3 - Deputy Advocate General. He has done every thing possible within his competence to refer the matter to the higher authorities for compounding of the cases. The Inquiry Officer has rightly exonerated the petitioner of the charges levelled against him except that the petitioner could have seized the property. The Court is of the considered view that a sum of ` 45,905/- could not be withheld from the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity of the petitioner without holding regular inquiry into the allegations levelled against him. It is not apparent from the record that regular inquiry was held against the petitioner except summary inquiry as conducted by the Range Forest Officer, Habban Range, Habban was carried out. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussion made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to release the sum of ` 45,905/- to the petitioner within a period of four weeks after the production of certified copy of this judgment. This amount shall carry interest at the rate prescribed under Rule 68 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 read with instruction No.(ii) appended thereto. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. May 13, 2011. (sck).