CWP(T) No. 16289 of 2008 16.3.2011 Present: Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Trilok Jamwal, Advocate, for the respondents. Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- (i) That the letter dated 11.5.2006 (Annexure A-8) and the Form HB(CAO)-85 dated 12-7-2006 (Annexure A-10) issued by the respondent No. 3 may kindly be quashed. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to refund the amount to the applicant with interest which has already been deducted/recovered by the respondent No. 5 from the salary of the applicant. 2. Petitioner was working as a Chowkidar and posted at store complex under Electrical Sub Division No. 2, HPSEB, Jogindernagar. One drum of conductor having value of ` 71,410/- was stolen from the store on 12.2.2005. Petitioner was Chowkidar at the relevant time. The department investigated the matter through a three member committee comprising of Assistant Executive Engineer and Additional Superintending Engineer. In the report (Annexure A-1) it is clearly mentioned that it was a case of theft. With regard to the petitioner’s misconduct the Committee formed an opinion that the possibility of the petitioner not performing his duties ‘could not be ruled out’. Importantly there was no clear cut finding with regard to the petitioner’s guilt of either embezzlement or dereliction of duty. 3. The Committee also recommended that the loss caused to the Board be written off after receipt of the final report of the police authority. -2- 4. Based on the report of the police investigation, by holding the petitioner guilty of having performed his duties negligently, respondents are seeking to recover the amount in question in terms of order dated 11.5.2006 (Annexure A-8). 5. Respondents have adopted a very peculiar procedure in determining the petitioner’s misconduct/guilt. Noticeably vide letter dated 13.9.2005 (Annexure A-3) explanation was sought from the petitioner as to why disciplinary action under the Rules [CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965] be not initiated against him. Yet no disciplinary proceedings were either initiated or concluded against the petitioner. The recovery sought to be affected from the petitioner is therefore patently illegal and the impugned Annexure A-8 and consequential action Annexure A-10 are accordingly quashed. It is always open for the respondents to take action in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid observations the present petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. March 16, 2011 (PK)