IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 10072 of 2008. Reserved on: 09.12.2010. Decided on: 07.01.2011. __________________________________________________________ Vidya Sagar Malhotra. … Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : None. For the Respondents : Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. None for respondent No.5. Rajiv Sharma, J. Petitioner has retired as a Chief Engineer from the respondent-Board on 31st January, 2000. He was informed vide Annexure A-1, dated 2nd May, 2000 that a sum of ` 24,127/- and ` 14,679/- has been paid in excess against the prescribed limit of Rs.12,000/- per annum as fixed for the Chief Engineer for telephone bill. Petitioner was also informed that a sum of ` 4,642/- is also to be recovered from him for exceeding the limit of consumption of petrol. The petitioner requested the authorities to settle the matter. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - 2. The case of the respondent-Board, in a nutshell, is that the excess payments have been detected during the inspection report for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. The petitioner was ultimately called upon to pay a sum of ` 38,296/- vide letter dated 8th August, 2003 (Annexure A-7). Thereafter the Senior Accounts Officer (PG) F&A Wing had sent a communication to the Manager, State Bank of India, Dalhousie, District Chamba to effect the recovery of a sum of ` 38,806/- from the retiral benefits of the petitioner and the same may be remitted to the quarter concerned. 3. The petitioner has not been heard before the issuance of Annexures A-7 and A-8. Petitioner has retired on 31.1.2000. In case the recoveries were to be effected, the petitioner ought to have been heard before the unilateral decision was taken to recover a sum of ` 38,296/-. The facts were within the knowledge of the respondent-Board in 1998-99 and 1999-2000. The petitioner has retired on 31.1.2000 and his request for settling the audit para has not been considered. The Court is of the considered opinion that there is violation of the principles of natural justice. The bills raised by the petitioner have been paid by the respondent- Board without raising any objection. The petitioner has retired on 31.1.2000 and the final decision to recover the sum of ` 38,296/- has been taken only on 8.8.2003. The petitioner has suffered civil and evil consequences since a sum of ` 38,296/- has been ordered to be recovered from his pensionary/retiral benefits. 4. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Anenxures A-7 and A-8, dated 8.8.2003 and 25.8.2003 respectively are quashed and set aside. In normal - 3 - circumstances, liberty ought to have been reserved to the respondent- Board to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. However, in the present case, since the petitioner has retired from service on 31.1.2000, it will cause immense economic hardships to the petitioner in case the respondent-Board is permitted to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Consequently, the proceedings are ordered to be closed. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. January 07, 2011. (sck).