2026:HHC:28788 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8573 of 2024 Decided on: 15.07 .2026 Chattar Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Upasana Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. : Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court inter alia praying for the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing/setting aside Notice dated 17.5.2024 (Annexure P-21), Notice dated 20.6.2024 (Annexure P-22) and Office Order dated 22.7.2024 (Annexure consequences. P-25), with all consequences. (ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to not to recover the alleged amount from the petitioner and in case any recoveries are made from the petitioner then the respondents 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:28788 may kindly be directed to refund/reimburse the same to the petitioner.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was sanctioned for repair/construction of the Field Kanungo Bhawan, Kuthera, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, vide office order dated 25-07-2017. At the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Field Kanungo, Kuthera. The work of repair/construction was duly carried out and a utilization certificate was issued on 25-08-2018 certifying that the sanctioned amount of 2.5 lakh was utilized for the repair work of the Kanungo Bhawan. ₹ The work carried out, included repair of slab, whitewash, paint work, tile work in kitchen, plaster work, repair work of electrical wiring, writing on walls etc. It is further the case of the petitioner that the compliance report of the work executed was submitted to respondent No. 4 on 25-10-2018. Thereafter, on 14-12-2020, in terms of Annexure P-3, respondent No. 3 issued a letter to the petitioner mentioning therein that valuation of the work was carried out, except for electrical work and it was found that the work done was only for an amount of 1,39,110./- A clarification was sought with ₹ respect to spending of the remaining amount of 1,10,890/-. ₹ According to the petitioner, this alleged valuation was carried out at 3 2026:HHC:28788 his back, as he was never associated with the same. Thereafter, respondent No. 3, vide letter dated 10-12-2021, brought these facts to the notice of respondent No. 4 and directed the said respondent to have the necessary amount recovered from the petitioner, in case, the valuation report submitted by the Assistant Engineer was found to be correct. 3. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation mentioning therein that he had got the entire work executed, which was worth 2,50,000/- ₹ and the work executed was duly evaluated and checked from every angle by the Authorities concerned. After the work of repair was completed, the Junior Engineer and the Assistant Engineer concerned had evaluated the work and certificates were issued by them and the entire bills qua estimate of the work were also submitted. The work was evaluated by the then Tehsildar and thereafter the valuation report was submitted by the Assistant Engineer. 4. The response submitted by the petitioner is appended with the petition as Annexure P-5, dated 3rd October, 2022 and the report submitted by Naib Tehsildar concerned to Tehsildar, dated 06- 10-2022, in which, it was mentioned that the work executed was for an amount of ₹2,50,000/-, is appended with the petition as 4 2026:HHC:28788 Annexure P-6. 5. Despite all this and despite utilization certificates placed on record issued by the concerned authorities, as impugned notices were issued to the petitioner for the deposition of the amount in issue, hence this petition. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that in the present case, an amount of 2,50,000/- was sanctioned in the ₹ year 2018 for carrying out the repair work of the Kanungo Bhawan at Kuthera. The repair work was carried out diligently by spending the entire amount. This fact was checked and assessed by all the authorities concerned and only thereafter utilization certificates were issued to the effect that the entire amount stood utilized. Yet, after two years, an inquiry was initiated in the matter and that too on the basis of the re-valuation of the work, with which the petitioner was not associated. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that firstly, there was no occasion to doubt the correctness of the valuation certificates initially submitted, as the certificates were submitted by responsible authorities, including the Assistant Engineer concerned and further, if there was any doubt in the mind of anyone qua the correctness of the valuation certificates, then before the valuation was again carried out, the petitioner ought to 5 2026:HHC:28788 have been associated with it. Learned Senior Counsel referred to para-13 of the writ petition and submitted that in this para, it is specifically averred by the petitioner that the work carried out, was strictly as per the utilization certificate, Annexure P-16, which was issued by the Assistant Engineer concerned and reply filed by the respondents to para-13 of the writ petition demonstrates that the averments made in this para of the petition stand admitted by the respondents, being a matter of record. He thus submitted that in this backdrop, as the entire action initiated against the petitioner was bad in law, the same be quashed and set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General argued that in the present case, as there was a complaint received that an amount of 2,50,000/- was wrongly declared to have been ₹ spent on the construction/repair work of the Kanungo Bhawan, therefore, fresh evaluation of the executed work was carried out, which demonstrated that work to the tune of 1,39,110/- had only ₹ been carried out, in this backdrop, recovery of 1,10,890/- was ₹ correctly ordered, so that the loss to the Government treasury could be made good. He submitted that as the action of the Department was above board, the present petition, being misconceived, is liable to be dismissed. 6 2026:HHC:28788 8. I have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the pleadings and documents appended therewith. 9. Documents appended with the petition demonstrate that in terms of certificate Annexure P-1, issued by Assistant Engineer, dated 25-08-2018 and utilization certificate Annexure P-16, again issued by Assistant Engineer concerned, report of a Committee presided over by Tehsildar Annexure P-19, dated 01.03.2024 and Annexure P-20, report of Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Ghumarwin, dated 06.03.2024, for the construction work of the Kanungo Bhawan, an amount of 2,50,000/- approximately was spent. Now, ₹ incidentally, two of these certificates have been issued by the Assistant Engineer concerned and the other two reports are, one by the Tehsildar concerned and the other by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil). Perusal of the reply filed by the department demonstrates that the correctness of these documents has not been disputed by the department in its reply. Therefore, it is apparent and evident from these documents that indeed an amount of 2,50,000/- was ₹ spent in the repair work of the Kanungo Bhawan, Kuthera, in the year 2018. Not only this, interestingly, the report of Sub-Divisional 7 2026:HHC:28788 Officer dated 06-03-2024, demonstrates that the discrepancy which was found in the actual amount utilized and the subsequent valuation report was on account of non-verification of certain bills and muster-rolls at the relevant time by the respondent administration. Now, the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) nowhere returns the finding that the petitioner, with a malafide intent, procured valuation certificates of a higher amount. In fact, this report ratifies that an amount of 2,50,000/- was spent on the ₹ repairs. That being the case, obviously, the allegation against the petitioner that the work executed for the repair of the Kanungo Bhawan was not to the tune of 2,50,000/- loses its ₹ foundation. Not only this, it is clearly borne out from the record that the so-called valuation subsequently done by the Authorities was at the back of the petitioner. He was never associated with this valuation and therefore, obviously, the petitioner could not have been called upon to make good the alleged non-utilized amount on the basis of a report, in the preparation whereof, the petitioner was not associated. Irrespective of this fact, as Annexure P-19 and Annexure P-20, read with Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-16 clearly demonstrate that an amount of 2,50,000/- was spent for repair and maintenance of the ₹ Kanungo Bhawan, Kuthera, the notices of recovery issued against 8 2026:HHC:28788 the petitioner are not sustainable. 10. Accordingly, in the light of the above observations, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned Annexures P-21, dated 17.05.2024, Annexure P-22, dated 20.06.2024 and Annexure P-25, dated 22.07.2024 are quashed and set aside and it is directed that no recovery shall be effected from the petitioner on the strength of these Annexures. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 15 , 2026 (narender)