Smt. Pushpa Kanwar vs State of H.P. and another

Justice Sanjay Karol, J.—A sum of Rs. 79,719/- was directed to be recovered in equal share from petitioner, Smt. Pushpa Kanwar, Sh. Gita Ram Talogta and Smt. Romil Bhardwaj. It is this order which is subject matter of challenge in these proceedings. In the preliminary inquiry, with which petitioner was not completely associated, department had arrived at the conclusion that the aforesaid officers were negligent in discharging their duties inasmuch as record pertaining to the disbursement of the aforesaid amount were found to be missing by the Inspection Committee.

Noticeably petitioner did not disburse the amount but only forwarded the papers for approval of the higher authorities and payment to be made to Respective Parties. Certainly there has been no regular inquiry against the petitioner before the impugned order dated 7.12.2006 was passed

It is not in dispute that petitioner has since superannuated and the amount falling to her share stands recovered from her. In fact, according to her, she was forced to agree for deduction of the same for the reason that respondents had withheld her retiral benefits.

It is also a matter of fact that subsequent to passing of the impugned order, inquiry proceedings were separately initiated only against Sh. Gita Ram Talogta. In the year 2006 itself, petitioner had informed the respondents that since she had superannuated, the office record, which she was asked to make available, was not in her possession and as such respondents were to trace the same within the department. Undisputedly subsequent to passing of the impugned orders no appropriate inquiry proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. Also no permission was sought from this Court for doing so in spite of the fact that petitioner filed the instant petition way back in the year 2007 itself.

It is not the case of the respondents that petitioner and other two employees had actually disbursed the amount to the beneficiary. Also there is no allegation of embezzlement. From the record it could not be shown as to how the department has been put to loss on account of petitioner''s conduct.

Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, learned counsel, further submits that petitioner is seeking only refund of the original amount recovered from her and not the interest accrued thereupon.

For all the aforesaid reasons present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 7.12.2006 qua the petitioner is quashed. Respondents are directed to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner in terms of the impugned order. Needful shall positively be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment, failing which, thereafter, petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9 per cent p.a. which shall be personally recovered from the erring official(s).

With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.