IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 7674 of 2008. Decided on: 28.4.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Dr. Dharamvir Singh Chanaria … Petitioner. Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Lokender Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G.. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral). The respondent No.3 has directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 74,000/- towards penal rent for unauthorized retention of Government accommodation. He was posted in Nalagarh. He was provided with Government accommodation in the premises of C.H.C., Nalagarh. He was transferred to C.H.C., Syari. He did not vacate the Government accommodation. He was permitted to retain the Government accommodation up to 31.3.1999. He did not vacate the accommodation beyond 31.3.1999. The audit party in the month of September, 1999 conducted the audit. It observed that the petitioner had occupied the Government accommodation without approval of the competent authority. The penal rent was worked out upto 31.8.1999 amounting to Rs. 37,817/-. He was issued memorandum dated 8.2.2000. He was asked to explain why recovery of rent upto 31.8.1999 and thereafter at the rate of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 Rs. 4451/- per month be not effected from him. He made representation which was rejected by the State. Mr. Lokender Thakur, Advocate has strenuously argued that no notice was issued to him before ordering recovery from him. According to him, the decision of the respondent-State to recover penal rent was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner was served with a memorandum dated 8.2.2000. I have heard the parties and perused the record carefully. The petitioner was allotted Government accommodation. He did not vacate the same within the stipulated period prescribed under the rules. He was called upon repeatedly to vacate the accommodation. Memorandum was issued to him on 8.2.2000. He was asked to explain the position why recovery of Rs. 37,817/- upto 31.8.1999 at the rate of Rs. 4451/- per month be not effected from him. He did not file any reply to the same. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that there is violation of principles of natural justice. He has been offered reasonable opportunity of being heard on the basis of memorandum dated 8.2.2000. He could explain by filing the reply why penal rent should not be charged. He has failed to avail the opportunity. In these circumstances, there is no force in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. April 28, 2009. (cr) 3