IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 7529 of 2008. Decided on: 6.5.2009. __________________________________________________ Shri Bidhi Chand. … Petitioner. Versus H.P. Forest Corporation Ltd. and others. .… Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate vice Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petitioner has assailed issuance of Annexure A-1 dated 6.5.1986, Annexure A-4 dated 28.1.1995, Annexure A-5 dated 11.1.1996, Annexure A-7 dated 26.8.1998 and Annexure A-9 dated 9.7.1997. A sum of Rs. 15,263/- was directed to be recovered from the petitioner on the basis of Annexures A-1, A-5, A-7 and A-9 respectively. A sum of Rs. 2233/- was ordered to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner as per Annexure A-4. Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate has strenuously argued that the petitioner has not been heard before the issuance of Annexures A-1, A-4, A-5, A-7 and A-9. He has strongly relied upon Rajesh Kumar and others versus Sy. CIT and others, 2007 (2) SCC 181. He further contended that a sum of Rs. 2233/- was liable 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 to be recovered from the salary of another person, namely; Shri Bidhi Chand who was also working in the Forest Corporation. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate has argued that the petitioner was not required to be heard before the issuance of impugned annexures. I have heard the parties and perused the record carefully. The petitioner has been visited with civil and evil consequences on the basis of impugned annexures. The recoveries could not be ordered to be effected from his salary without hearing him. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar and others versus Dy. CIT and others, 2007 (2) SCC 181 have held that the person who is visited by any action or order of the authority with civil or evil consequences must be heard. Their Lordships have held as under: “26. Effect of civil consequences arising out of determination of lis under a statute is stated in State of Orissa v.Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Ors. (1967 (2) SCR 625). It is an authority for the proposition when by reason of an action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, principles of natural justice are required to be followed. In such an event, although no express provision is laid down in this behalf compliance of principles of natural justice would be implicit. In case of denial of principles of natural justice in a statute, the same may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.” In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as quoted hereinabove, the respondents could not effect recoveries from the salary of the petitioner without hearing him. It is apparent from a perusal of the records that recovery of Rs. 3 2233/- was to be effected from another Bidhi Chand, who was working in the respondent-Corporation and not from the petitioner’s salary. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexures A-1, A-4, A-5, A-7 and A-9 are quashed and set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent-Corporation to pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. May 6, 2009. (cr)