IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 11557 of 2008 Date of decision: 1.4.2011. _______________________________________________________ Ashok Kumar ….. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Avinash Jaryal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.g. with Mr. J.S. Rana, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Ajit Saklani, Advocate vice counsel. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) The petitioner has prayed for quashing of Annexure A-1, dated 16.8.2004, vide which the Deputy Director of Education, Chamba has directed the Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Chhatrari, Chamba to recover the amounts of `11,200/- and `19,250/- from the petitioner in view of the audit paras. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid amount was paid to the petitioner on account of LTC. The Deputy Director of Education ordered the recovery of aforesaid amounts from the petitioner merely on the basis of Audit paras, before issuing the letter Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… dated 16.8.2004, no show cause notice was given to the petitioner for the aforesaid recovery. The recovery from the petitioner, based upon letter dated 16.8.2004, is against the principle of natural justice. 2. The respondents No. 1 to 4 have not filed any reply despite several opportunities, however, respondent No.5 has filed the reply, in which it has been stated that the aforesaid amount was wrongly paid to the petitioner. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner has drawn the aforesaid amounts for availing LTC. It appears that there was audit objection regarding the payment made to the petitioner for availing LTC. There is nothing on record that before ordering recovery, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The recovery of aforesaid amount from the petitioner amounts to civil consequences and no recovery can be effected unless it is made by following the due process of law and principle of natural justice. Therefore, only on this ground the letter dated 16.8.2004 Annexure A-1 is quashed. However, the respondents No. 1 to 4 shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law for effecting the recovery from the petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. 1st April 1, 2011 (Kuldip Singh), ( vt) Judge.