IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 11181 of 2008 Judgment reserved on 28.9.2010 Date of decision: 27.10.2010 Ashwani Kumar ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. and others …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K.Verma, Dy. A.G. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge The petitioner in the petition has prayed for quashing of order dated 28.8.2004 Annexure A-2. The grievance of the petitioner is that on 12.4.1996 he was deputed by respondent No.4 to collect some agriculture inputs. The petitioner handed over such agriculture inputs to respondent No.4 who did not raise any objection. The respondent No.3 vide letter dated 28.8.2004 Annexure A-2 has ordered recovery of ` 10,578/- from the petitioner after eight years on account of alleged shortage of agriculture inputs. The respondent No.4 was responsible to enter the articles in the Stock Register maintained in the office. The respondents have not followed the principle of natural justice. The petitioner is simply a Class-IV employee and his duty was only to bring the articles from Central Store, Chamba to the office of respondent No.4. It appears that respondent No.4 has mis-appropriated the articles as he did not enter the articles in the Stock Register. The shortage has been thrusted on the petitioner after a period of eight years. The petitioner has been condemned unheard, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before ordering recovery of ` 10,578/- vide letter dated 28.8.2004. In these circumstances, letter dated 28.8.2004 Annexure A-2 is liable to be quashed. 2. The petition has been contested by respondents No.1 to 4 by filing reply and it has been stated that petitioner had not handed over all agriculture inputs to respondent No.4. The petitioner had handed over to respondent No.4 short agriculture inputs. It has been stated that petitioner was asked many times by respondent No.4 to produce the receipt or reconcile the agriculture inputs material which was received by the petitioner but to no avail. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of the petition. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The respondents have placed on record letters dated 21.10.2003 and 28.8.2004. In fact letter dated 28.8.2004 has also been placed on record by the petitioner. The petitioner has been asked to deposit an amount of ` 10,578/- vide letter dated 21.10.2003, similarly vide letter dated 28.8.2004 the petitioner has been asked to deposit the said amount, failing which interest at the rate of 12% would be charged. The respondents have also given break up of ` 10,578/- vide Annexure R-3. 4. The stand of the petitioner is that he had handed over the agriculture inputs to respondent No.4 who mis-appropriated them. The petitioner is a Class-IV employee. The respondents have raised the demand of ` 10, 578/- on the basis of audit para as per letter dated 28.8.2004. It is the case of the petitioner that he had handed over the agriculture inputs to the then respondent No.4. The petitioner has also taken the stand that the then respondent No.4 has mis-appropriated the agriculture inputs. The reply has been filed by the Director Agriculture and he has verified the reply on the basis of his knowledge and belief. The reply has not been verified on the basis of the information of the then respondent No.4 nor it has been verified on the basis of the record. The demand of ` 10,578/- is not in consonance with principles of natural justice. There is nothing on record that prior to raising demand of ` 10,578/- any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner or he was given an opportunity of hearing. In these circumstances, the demand of ` 10,578/- from the petitioner vide letter dated 28.8.2004 Annexure A-2 is not sustainable. 5. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The letter dated 28.8.2004 Annexure A-2 is quashed. It is open to the respondents to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice October 27, 2010 (Justice Kuldip Singh), (GR) Judge.