IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8650 of 2023 Decided on: 4th August, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yog Raj Thakur …..Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. S.P. Chatterji, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner retired from the service of respondent- Himachal Road Transport Corporation as Regional Manager on 31.07.2019. Respondents have withheld an amount of Rs.1,51,964/- from the retiral dues due and admissible to the petitioner. This has statedly been done in view of audit objections pointed out during internal audit of the respondent-Corporation carried out in January, 2019. In terms of the audit report, the petitioner could not justify the use of official vehicle for 11841 kilometers. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that recovery as imposed upon the petitioner post his retirement amounts to inflicting a minor penalty under Rule 11(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Such penalty could not have been imposed without issuing charge-sheet to the petitioner by the competent authority, i.e. respondent No.1. It was further contended that principles of natural justice were also not complied with by the respondents before deducting the above amount from petitioner’s retiral dues. That recovery could not have been effected from the petitioner without following the prescribed procedure in terms of the applicable Rules. 3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has preferred a representation to respondent No.1 on 11.04.2023 (Annexure P-3) for the redressal of his grievance, but the aforesaid representation has not been considered till date by the competent authority. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case respondent No.1/competent authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representation within a fixed time schedule. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the respondents is not averse to this prayer. 5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.1/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law and applicable rules within a period of four weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 04, 2025 Judge Mukesh