HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2208 of 2024 Lakhvinder Singh ….....Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Narain Dutt, Brief Holder for the State/ respondent no.1. Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 5. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to the notice dated 28.08.2024, issued by the respondent no.3 (Annexure 1), by which, the petitioner was required to explain as to why, the recovery of Rs. 26,486/- may not be made against him. The challenge is also made to the office order dated 19.09.2024, by which, the recovery order has been made. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The petitioner was working as a Driver on contract basis with the respondent/ authorities since, 1998. His services have yet not been regularized. He gets Rs. 3.21 per Km. for driving and he was engaged for 24 days in a month. The petitioner was deployed to take a bus from Nainital to Agra. The distance is 778 Km. On 05.08.2024, the petitioner started from 2 Bhowali, but when he reached Nainital, there was some technical problem which occurred in the vehicle. Therefore, the petitioner informed the authorities at Bhowali about it. Thereafter, when the bus could be repaired, it was taken to Haldwani. But there again some technical problem occurred in the vehicle. The petitioner informed the respondent no.4 about it. The petitioner was asked to take the bus at Bhowali workshop. The petitioner somehow managed to repair the vehicle temporarily, but the vehicle could not be taken to Agra, which was a long route. Thereafter, notices were issued to the petitioner and recovery order has been passed. 4. According to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 5, the petitioner did not follow the instruction to take the vehicle to Arga on 05.08.2024. According to the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 5, if the vehicle was not in order, then the petitioner could have approached the nearby workshop. The vehicle was next day sent to Agra. 5. Similar response has been filed by the respondent no.4. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not commit any fault in taking the vehicle on 05.08.2024. When he took the vehicle from Bhowali to Nainital, it had some technical snag. He immediately informed the Foreman Ram Lal and the respondent no.4 about the technical problem which occurred in the vehicle. On the request of the petitioner, the respondent no.4 sent an electrician with a part of the vehicle. The vehicle was repared. Thereafter, the vehicle was taken to Haldwani. 3 Again, there some problem occurred. The petitioner had to wait for three hours in the Nainital. Thereafter, when he reached Haldwani, he did not get passengers. Even the vehicle had another technical snag. Under those circumstances, the vehicle could not be taken to Agra. It is argued that no inquiry was conducted in the matter. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 5 would submit that the petitioner was given a notice. To which, he replied. Thereafter, the order has been passed. 8. The Court posed a question to learned counsel for the respondents, as to whether any inquiry was conducted in the matter because it is a specific case of the petitioner that he has informed the Foreman Ram Lal and had also informed the Electrician Mohd. Ahmed. Thereafter, the respondent no.4 had sent an Electrician. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 5 would submit that, as such, no statements of the witnesses have been recorded in the inquiry. 10. In para 4 of his petition, the petitioner writes that on 05.08.2024, when he was driving the vehicle bearing Registration No. UK07PA/ 4194 from Bhowali to Agra and when he reached Nainital, the bus got a technical snag. He informed Foreman, respondent no.4 and one Electrician Mohd. Ahmed. This fact could have been ascertained by asking from these persons as named by the petitioner. 4 11. Not only, it is also the case of the petitioner that one Electrician had come and thereafter, the vehicle could be taken to Haldwani. These facts have not been examined by the respondents. Therefore, without ascertaining the truth, an order for recovery has been passed, which cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and impugned orders set aside. 12. The writ petition is allowed. 13. Impugned orders dated 28.08.2024 and 19.09.2024 are set aside. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 05.04.2025 Jitendra