IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 4434 of 2008. Decided on: 14.09.2010. __________________________________________________________ Joginder Singh. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondent No.1. Mr. Virender Verma, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): Petitioner is aggrieved by the recoveries effected from his salary pursuant to office order dated 5th January, 1996/24th January, 1996. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been heard before issuance of office order dated 5th January/24th January, 1996, which has visited him with civil and evil consequences. The office order in question ought to have been passed after hearing the petitioner. 2. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Office order dated 5th January/24th January, 1996 is quashed and set aside. However, the liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - with law. Petitioner shall be heard and also associated, if any inquiry is initiated against the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. September 14, 2010. (sck).