SCA/8645/1998 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8645 of 1998 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI : ========================================= ================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= ================ NATHABHAI CHUNILAL SOLANKI - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================= ================ Appearance : MR JA ADESHRA for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR APURVA DAVE AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================= ================ CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 15/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution SCA/8645/1998 2/4 JUDGMENT of India, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 25.11.1997 passed by respondent no. 2 by which an amount of Rs.11,688.59 was sought to be recovered from the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 05.07.1977 the petitioner joined the services under the respondent – Department as a W.C. Technical Assistant. On 31.05.1983, the petitioner was promoted to the post of an Overseer. 3. On 09.03.1989, the petitioner received a letter / notice from the Deputy Executive Engineer, Dharoi Canal Division calling upon the petitioner to explain the alleged shortfall in the stock of certain construction materials. In pursuance of the said letter, the petitioner give his reply on 29.03.1989. The petitioner was served with an order dated 25.11.1997 issued by the respondent no. 2 directing to recover an amount of Rs.11,688.59 from the petitioner. 4. Thereafter, in the month of August 1998, an amount of Rs.1000/- was recovered from the salary of the petitioner and the petitioner was informed that similar deductions would be made until the entire recovery is made. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. While admitting the matter on SCA/8645/1998 3/4 JUDGMENT 09.02.1999, this Court had stayed the implementation of the impugned order of recovery passed by the respondent – authority. Till today, no reply has been filed by the respondents. In that view of the matter, this Court has no other alternative but, to accept the averments made in the petition as it is. 6. Even otherwise, it appears from the record that the impugned order of recovery has been passed in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Apart from that from the order dated 03.09.2004, which is on record, it is clear that the petitioner has been exonerated. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the respondent - authority cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and it deserves to be set aside. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. It is stated that the respondent – authority has made some recovery from the petitioner prior to the order passed by this Court. If that be so, then it shall be open to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent – authority pointing out his grievances qua the said recovery. If such an application is preferred by the petitioner, the respondent – authority will decide the same in accordance with law keeping in mind the fact that the impugned order has been quashed and set aside by this Court. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] SCA/8645/1998 4/4 JUDGMENT Pravin/*