Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 439 (HP)

SAVITA SHARMA v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2020-07-15

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. Controversy in the case at hand is with regard to recovery effected from the salary of the petitioner on account of shortage of books in the District Mahima Library, Nahan. Petitioner prior to her transfer to Govt. Degree College, Sangrah, District Sirmour, H.P. was working in District Mahima Library, Nahan and as such, on 14.8.2007, she handed over the charge of the library to new incumbent i.e. respondent No.4. Since handing over of charge on 14.8.2007 was not complete, petitioner was again vide memorandum dated 3.11.2007 was requested to handover the complete charge of the books/articles. Pursuant to aforesaid communication, petitioner handed over the remaining charge of library on 3.12.2007, as is evident from the list of library security papers and list of stock registers, which are duly signed by the petitioner, respondent No.4 and also counter signed by District Librarian, Nahan (Annexure P2 & Annexure P3). 2. Subsequently, vide letter dated 24.3.2008, respondent No.4 wrote to the Principal, Government College, Sangrah, District Sirmour that on physical verification 1397 books, amounting to Rs. 31,998.56/ have been found missing and as such, petitioner be directed to either restore the books or to pay the amount. In response to aforesaid communication, petitioner herself sent communication dated 1.5.2008 (Annexure P5) to respondent No.4 claiming therein that since complete charge of District Mahima Library, Nahan was handed over to her on 3.12.2007, it is not understood how 1397 books, amounting to Rs. 31,998.56/ can be said to be found missing. Vide aforesaid communication, petitioner also claimed that since she had given the complete charge on 3.12.2007, she is not under any obligation to pay the amount, as is being indicated in the communication dated 24.3.2008 addressed to Principal, Government College, Sangrah, District Sirmour, H.P. 3. Record reveals that subsequent to aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner, respondent No.4 directly sent communication to respondent No.2, i.e. Director of Higher Education, Shimla, H.P., intimating therein factum with regard to shortage of books, who further vide letter 21.9.2008 (Annexure P6), directed respondent No.3 to recover the amount from the petitioner. Record reveals that subsequent to aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner, respondent No.4 directly sent communication to respondent No.2, i.e. Director of Higher Education, Shimla, H.P., intimating therein factum with regard to shortage of books, who further vide letter 21.9.2008 (Annexure P6), directed respondent No.3 to recover the amount from the petitioner. However, petitioner vide communication dated 12.11.2008 (Annexure P7) addressed to the Director, Higher Education, Shimla, informed that since on 3.12.2007, petitioner had handed over the complete charge of District Mahima Library, Nahan to her successor respondent No.4, she cannot be held liable to pay any amount on account of shortage of books. 4. Perusal of communication dated 22.12.2008 (Annexure P8) sent by Principal Government Degree College, Nahan in reference to communication dated 21.9.2008 further reveals that Principal, Government Degree College, Nahan after having satisfied himself that no recovery, if any, is made out from the petitioner also wrote to the Director Higher Education that complete charge of library was handed over to respondent No.4 by the petitioner on 3.12.2007 and as such, no amount can be said to be recovered from the petitioner, but despite there being aforesaid clarification issued by the petitioner as well as respondent No.3, an amount of Rs. 13000/ was deducted from the salary of the petitioner for the month of November, 2010 payable in December, 2010, compelling petitioner to file representation dated 8.12.2010 (Annexure P9) to respondent No.3, praying therein to stop the recovery. Vide letter dated 10.12.2010 (Annexure P10) respondent No.3 informed the petitioner that since she despite repeated opportunities failed to settle the dispute, sum of Rs. 37,998,56/ is being recovered from her salary in three installments in terms of the direction issued by the Director Higher Education, Shimla, H.P., vide letter dated 20.3.2010. In the aforesaid background, petitioner approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein following reliefs: "(i) That the recovery of Rs. 37,998.56/ being effected from the salary of petitioner on account of alleged shortages of books of District Mahima Library, Nahan as reflected in letter dated 10.12.2010, Annexure P10, may kindly be quashed and setaside. (ii) That the respondent No.3 may be directed to refund the amount of Rs.13,000/ deducted from the salary of petitioner for the month of November, 2010 payable in December, 2010 with interest at market rate on delay payments. (ii) That the respondent No.3 may be directed to refund the amount of Rs.13,000/ deducted from the salary of petitioner for the month of November, 2010 payable in December, 2010 with interest at market rate on delay payments. (iii) That if during the pendency of writ petition, any further recovery is effected from the salary of petitioner, in that event the same may also be directed to be refunded with interest at market rate." 5. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner prior to her transfer to Government College, Sangrah, District Sirmour, H.P., was serving in District Mahima Library at Nahan as Librarian, whereafter she was requested to hand over the complete charge of books remained under her charge in District Library, Nahan to respondent No.4, being her successor. 6. It clearly emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties that on 14.8.2007 petitioner handed over the charge of library upto 28.9.2007 to respondent No.4, Smt. Vibha Seth, whereafter petitioner after having received communication from respondent No. 4 again came to District Mahima Library, Nahan and handed over the remaining charge of library on 3.12.2007. Careful perusal of Annexures P2 & P3, clearly reveal that on 3.12.2007 complete charge of books as well as library security papers were handed over to respondent No.4. List, as referred above, if perused in its entirety clearly reveals that on 3.12.2007 petitioner apart from handing over the books, also handed over the certain registers, pass books, cheque books, papers and FDRs. Close scrutiny of the list as contained in Annexure P3 reveals that petitioner while handing over the charge to respondent No. 4 has given complete details of the books because serial numbers have been specifically mentioned in the list of stock registers. This Court finds that serial number as mentioned in the list qua books of all subjects are in seriatim and no book has been shown to be missing in the serial numbers detailed in the list of stock register /books. It has been categorically mentioned in the bottom of the aforesaid list that complete charge from serial No.1 to 10 are handed over to respondent No.4, Smt. Vibha Seth. Apart from the petitioner, respondent No.4, District Librarian has also counter signed the list. 7. It has been categorically mentioned in the bottom of the aforesaid list that complete charge from serial No.1 to 10 are handed over to respondent No.4, Smt. Vibha Seth. Apart from the petitioner, respondent No.4, District Librarian has also counter signed the list. 7. Though, respondents No.1 and 2 with a view to justify their order of recovery have made an attempt to carve out a case that no physical verification/ counting of items detailed in the lists in question was done at the time of handing over and taking of the charge, but such stand taken by respondents No.1 and 2 is not tenable for three reasons; (i) careful perusal of list of stock registers Annexure P3, which has been signed by the petitioner, respondent No.4 and District Librarian, Nahan, clearly reveals that complete charge of the books, as detailed in the list, was handed over to respondent No.4 by the petitioner on 3.12.2007. There is no mention in the list that at the time of handing over the charge no physical verification of registers/books was done; (ii) there could not be any handing over /taking of charge of library without there being any physical verification of books and registers and lastly it is not understood that why version of respondent No.4 that 1397 books have been found missing came to be accepted by the department without there being any enquiry in the matter, especially when respondent No.4 has herself appended her signature on the list of stock registers/books containing specific note that complete charge from Sr. No.1 to 10 is handed over to respondent No.4, Smt. Vibha Seth. Having seen signature of District Librarian, Nahan on the list of stock registers/books, this Court has reason to presume that handing over/ taking of charge on 3.12.2007 was done in the presence of District Librarian, Nahan. Moreover, books pertaining to different subjects have been mentioned serial wise in the list in question and if serial numbers given in the list are perused, no books can be said to be missing at the time of handing over/taking of the charge. 8. Leaving everything aside, this Court finds that the respondents before effecting recovery afforded no opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, who by way of repeated representations/ communications clarified her position. 8. Leaving everything aside, this Court finds that the respondents before effecting recovery afforded no opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, who by way of repeated representations/ communications clarified her position. Respondent No.3 after having received clarification from the petitioner specifically informed the Director Higher Education that no recovery, if any, can be effected from her, but despite that sum of Rs.37,998.56/ was ordered to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner in three installments, which action of the respondents is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed and setaside. This Court finds from the record that respondent-department besides ordering recovery from the salary of the petitioner, also stopped the retiral benefits of respondent No.4, who being aggrieved filed civil suit No.241 of 2012, titled as Vibha Seth versus State of Himachal Pradesh after her retirement in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Nahan. It is not understood that how respondents without fixing liability, if any, of petitioner or respondent No.4 could order for recovery from both the petitioner and respondent No.4. Plea taken by respondent No.4 in the reply that no physical verification of the books was done at the time of handing over of the charge cannot be accepted in view of the specific note contained in the list of books Annexure P3 that complete charge from Sr. No.1 to 10 is handed over to respondent No.4, Smt. Vibha Seth. 9. In normal circumstances, respondents No.1 and 2 after having received plea/complaint, if any, with regard to shortage of books ought to have been constituted enquiry to determine the guilt, if any, of the petitioner or respondent No.4, but interestingly in the case at hand respondents solely with a view to hush-up the matter unilaterally ordered for recovery of the amount from the salary of petitioner, who otherwise on 3.12.2007 handed over the complete charge of the library to respondent No.4. 10. Submission made by learned Additional Advocate General that no physical verification of things lying in the office is usually done at the time of handing over/taking of the charge cannot be accepted because accepting such contention would render very important function of handing over/ taking of charge as mere formality. 10. Submission made by learned Additional Advocate General that no physical verification of things lying in the office is usually done at the time of handing over/taking of the charge cannot be accepted because accepting such contention would render very important function of handing over/ taking of charge as mere formality. Very purpose of handing over/taking of charge by one official to another official is to ensure that things/ cash lying in the office has been property maintained and there is no loss to the public exchequer. By way of handing over/taking of charge factum with regard to short fall and loss of the things, if any, belonging to a particular office comes to the fore. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion made hereinabove as well as documents available on record, this Court sees no justification for the recovery of petitioner and as such, action initiated in this regard by the respondents deserves to be rectified in accordance with law. 12. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is allowed and letter dated 10.12.2010 (Annexure P10) is quashed and set-aside. The respondent No.3 is directed to refund the amount deducted from the salary of the petitioner on account of shortage of books with uptodate interest to the petitioner. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.