Lekh Ram vs State of H.P. and Others

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the recoveries sought to be made as per Annexure P-7 and connected documents. The issue pertains to TA claimed by the petitioner under the Rules. There is no serious dispute even according to the audit party that the Rules do permit him to avail the benefits. The dispute is only with regard to the issue whether the claim was supported by the relevant documents. It is seen that the claim was verified by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer and also the Treasury Officer at the relevant time. The audit took place only far thereafter. In the audit, it appears that it was found, as per Annexure A-3, that the claim was not supported by some of the documents.

We have gone through the audit objection. We feel that it will be sheer harassment to the employee concerned to proceed against him after such a long period with an allegation that the claim was not supported by the required documents. The matter was verified at the relevant time by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer and also by the Treasury Officer before disbursing all the benefits. If an audit party is of the view that the relevant documents were not there, it is not the petitioner who is to be proceeded against but the supervising officer concerned. It will not also be out of context to take note of the fact that the required documents have again been furnished. Therefore, the impugned orders are quashed and the writ petition is allowed.

In case any recovery has been made so far, the same shall be disbursed to the petitioner within a month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.