JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J.( Oral)- The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing Annexure A-2 dated 24.8.1994, Annexure A-4 dated 29.8.1994, Annexure A-5 dated 23.9.1994 and Annexure A-6 dated 5.11.1994 and restraining the respondents from effecting recovery from the salary of petitioner. There is no Annexure A-6 on record. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he has been appointed as Clerk in the respondent No.1-Corporation and was subsequently promoted to the post of Store Keeper and thereafter promoted as Senior Assistant (Accounts). The petitioner had discharged his duties as Store Keeper at Head Office w.e.f. 1983 to 1991 except for a break of two years from 1985 to 1987. The petitioner was transferred from Head Office Shimla to Kinnaur in the year 1991 and at the time of his relieving, he handed over the charge of his seat to one Rajinder Chauhan. He raised no objection at the time of handing over the charge by the petitioner in the year 1991. The petitioner had assumed his duties at Kinnaur as Senior Assistant w.e.f. 1.4.1991 and discharged his duties in the same capacity till 7.8.1993 when the petitioner was transferred to Bilaspur. 3. 3. The Manager (Development and Production) of respondent No.1 had issued office order dated 8.8.1994 regarding alleged shortage of Rs.33437.08 paise. It was mentioned in the office order dated 8.8.1994 that as per earlier office order the petitioner was directed to send the charge list of stocks and stores handed over by him to Rajinder Chauhan, Accounts Clerk. The petitioner was granted seven days time to submit the charge list alongwith his explanation. The petitioner had submitted the details of charge list to the Manager (Development and Production) vide communication dated 6.4.1994. It has been alleged that without instituting any departmental inquiry to verify the alleged shortage of Rs.33437.08 paise , the respondent No.1 had issued office order dated 24.8.1994 indicating shortage of Rs.33437.08 paise against the petitioner. It was observed in the office order dated 24.8.1994 that the amount be recovered from the petitioner at once. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 11.9.1994 and contested the claim of the respondents and had requested the authorities to reconsider the decision dated 24.8.1994 but despite that respondent No.2 vide office order dated 29.8.1994 had directed the petitioner to deposit sum of Rs.22437.08 paise in the office at the earliest. 4. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 11.9.1994 and contested the claim of the respondents and had requested the authorities to reconsider the decision dated 24.8.1994 but despite that respondent No.2 vide office order dated 29.8.1994 had directed the petitioner to deposit sum of Rs.22437.08 paise in the office at the earliest. 4. Thereafter another office order dated 23.9.1994 was issued by Manager and it was observed in the said office order that during the physical verification at Kinnaur shortage of three shawls stood against the petitioner amounting to Rs.6000/- . It was observed in the office order dated 23.9.1994 that a sum of Rs.6000/should be recovered from the salary of the petitioner by way of four installments of Rs.1500/- each. The respondent No.2 vide office order dated 5.11.1994 informed respondent No.1. that as per instructions issued on 30.10.1994 by respondent No.1 a sum of Rs.2000/- against the recovery pertaining to head office and a sum of Rs.1500/- against the recovery pertaining to Kinnaur Complex have been started w.e.f. October, 1994. The respondents pursuant to Annexure A-4, Annexure A-5 etc. have started making recovery of Rs.3500/- per month from the salary of the petitioner in illegal manner. 5. The decision of the respondents regarding recovery made by them has been challenged by the petitioner on the grounds that no inquiry was conducted by the respondents against the alleged shortage. The recoveries are against the principle of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that as per the case of the respondents shortages were of the period when petitioner worked at the place where the shortages were found and therefore, the recoveries are justified. The learned counsel for the respondents has fairly submitted that no inquiry was conducted and the petitioner has never admitted the shortages imputed to him. The respondents have alleged shortages on the basis of physical verification of the stocks and therefore started the recoveries. The petitioner has contested the claim of the respondents that there was no shortage. In these circumstances the minimum required from the side of the respondents was to conduct inquiry, which has not been conducted. The respondents have alleged shortages on the basis of physical verification of the stocks and therefore started the recoveries. The petitioner has contested the claim of the respondents that there was no shortage. In these circumstances the minimum required from the side of the respondents was to conduct inquiry, which has not been conducted. Therefore, there is substance in the stand of the petitioner that the decision taken by the respondents to recover amount from the petitioner Rs.33437.80 and Rs.6000/- is wrong when petitioner is disputing the shortages. 6. In these circumstances, the petitioner has made out a case for quashing Annexure A-2 dated 24.8.1994, Annexure A-4 dated 29.8.1994, Annexure A-5 dated 23.9.1994 which are accordingly quashed. The respondents are at liberty to proceed against the petitioner for alleged shortages in accordance with law. The petition stands disposed of on above terms.