IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 9001/2008 Reserved on: 6.1.2011 Decided on:21.2. 2011 _____________________________________________ Rajinder Singh. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. ____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of Annexure A-1 dated 28.11.2001 whereby he has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.13,325/- in the Government Treasury. 2. Mr. Tek Chand Sharma has strenuously argued that Annexure A-1 has been issued in violation of principles of natural justice. He then contended that his client has complied with all the codal formalities at the time of submission of L.T.C., which he availed in the block years of 1989-90. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Mr. P.M. Negi has vehemently argued that the recoveries are being effected on the basis of audit para. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner has availed L.T.C. in the block years 1989-90. The audit was carried out in the years with effect October, 1988 to December, 1995 and thereafter from 30.1.1996 to 3.2.1996. The copy of the same is marked as Annexure-RA. It is evident from Annexure RA that the petitioner has not furnished the tickets for undertaking journey from Marhi to Dehradun. It is in these circumstances that Annexure A-1 has been issued whereby petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 13,325/- in the Government Treasury. It has come in the reply that the petitioner had been given opportunity to settle the audit para. The Court is of the considered view that though the petitioner had been given an opportunity to settle audit para, still he was required to be issued notice before he was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 13,325/- vide Annexure A-1 dated 28.11.2001. Petitioner has suffered civil and evil consequences. He has retired from service on 28.2.1995 and Annexure A-1 has been issued on 28.11.2001. 3 6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-1 dated 28.11.2001 is quashed and set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 21.2. 2011 *awasthi*