IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 4808 of 2008 Decided on: 17.08.2010 Sagar Chand …Petitioner Versus H.P. State Handicrafts & Handloom Development Corporation and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. No For the petitioner. : Mr. G.S. Rathore, Advocate. For the respondents : None. _______________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) : The petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of order dated 27.10.1997 whereby recovery of Rs. 7050.38 has been ordered to be effected from him. Notice was issued to the petitioner by the Finance Manager on 24.09.1997, whereby he was called upon to file reply by 4.10.1997. The fact of the mater is that the petitioner has filed reply on 9.10.1997. The order Annexure A-8 dated 27.10.1997 was passed by the Finance Manager on the basis of the directions issued by him on 24.09.1997. It is specifically mentioned in Annexure A-8 dated 27.10.1997 that the petitioner has not filed reply by 4.10.1997. However, the fact of the matter is that reply to the notice dated 24.09.1997 was filed on 9.10.1997 and the decision to recover a 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No -2- sum of Rs. 7050.38/- from the salary of the petitioner was taken on 27.10.1997. The period given to the petitioner to file reply was only 10 days. In these circumstances, the reply filed by the petitioner on 9.10.1997 ought to have been considered by the Competent Authority i.e. Finance Manager. 2. Accordingly, Annexure A-8 dated 27.10.1997 is quashed and set aside being violative of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was 45 years old at the time when the present petition was filed as such the Court can take a judicial notice of the fact that now either the petitioner is at the fag end of his service carrier or stands retired. In normal circumstances, the respondents ought to have been permitted to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. However, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is either at the fag end of his service carrier or stands retired, the proceedings in this matter are closed. 3. In the light of above, the petition is disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge August 17, 2010 (K. Attri)