Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 324 (HP)

Shiv Dev Singh v. State of H. P.

2011-01-07

V.K.SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT Justice V.K. Sharma, J. In 1987 the petitioner was working as Drawing Teacher in Government Middle School, May Field, Shimla. Admittedly, during the said period, he had availed Leave Travel Concession (L.T.C.) for Bharat Darshan to the tune of Rs. 2550/-. According to the petitioner, after availing L.T.C., he had duly submitted all the vouchers to the concerned authority in the school in 1987 itself. However, to his utter dismay after lapse of about 18 years vide the impugned notice dated 16.8.2005, Annexure A-1, he was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs. 34,300/- i.e. the principal amount of Rs. 2550/- + penal interest to the tune of Rs. 31,750/- in terms of audit said to have been carried out for the period September, 1987 to October, 1995. 2. Against the above backdrop, the petition has been filed on the following prayers vide paras 7 (a) and (b):-“7 (a). Quash the impugned order A-1 issued arbitrarily, mala fide and illegally by the respondents. (b). Direct the respondents to repay the whole of amount if recovered during the pendency of this OA along with interest thereon @ 18% p.a. from the date of recovered till the date of realization with all the consequential benefits.” 3. In reply on behalf of the respondents, the following stand has been taken vide para 6.3 on merits: “6.3. That in reply to this part it is submitted that the applicant had taken an advance of Rs. 2550/- on account of L.T.C. in the year 1988 vide bill No. 296 dated 12.1.1988 but he failed to submit the adjustment vouchers on completion of journey as required under the rules. The contention of the applicant that he had taken an advance in the year 1985 and had submitted the bills along with relevant documents is also correct. It is made clear that advance taken by the applicant in the year 1985 had been adjusted on 19.7.1985 but LTC advance taken by the applicant in the year 1988 vide bill No. 296 dated 12.1.1988 is still unadjusted as the applicant has miserably failed to submit the requisite vouchers with the stipulated period. It is made clear that advance taken by the applicant in the year 1985 had been adjusted on 19.7.1985 but LTC advance taken by the applicant in the year 1988 vide bill No. 296 dated 12.1.1988 is still unadjusted as the applicant has miserably failed to submit the requisite vouchers with the stipulated period. The recovery pointed out by the Audit Party is legally sustainable and amount advanced by the applicant in the year 1988 has rightly been ordered to be recovered with penal interest as per the rules because non-adjustment of LTC advance within the stipulated period is considered as mis-appropriation on the part of the employee concerned.” 4. The impugned notice dated 16.8.2005, Annexure A-1, has been challenged by the petitioner, who has since retired from Government service about one year back on the grounds, firstly; that the same infringes the principles of natural justice as no notice was issued to him to explain his position before straight way calling upon him to deposit the said sum of Rs. 34,300/- and secondly, that the same also suffers from inordinate delay and latches inasmuch as that the alleged demand has been raised after about 18 years. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had submitted the requisite vouchers to the concerned authority soon after undertaking the L.T.C. tour and now, it is well nigh impossible for him to even obtain duplicate copies of such bills and to produce the same before the concerned authority. Another aspect of the matter, which cannot be lightly over-looked is that not even a copy of the alleged audit para has been brought on record by the respondents. 5. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 16.8.2005, Annexure A-1, is quashed with liberty reserved to the respondents to proceed in the matter in accordance with law and justice, if so advised, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has since retired from service. 6. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any.