2026:UHC:1373-DB 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Service Bench No. 314 of 2023 26th February, 2026 Vidyawati Roy --Petitioner Versus 1: State Of Uttarakhand 2: Director Udyan And Khad Prasanskaran 3: Joint Director Horticulture 4: Chief Horticulture Officer 5: Senior Finance Officer --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment Coram: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. (Oral) Petitioner’s husband late Arvind Kumar Roy was posted as Potato and Vegetable Development Officer, in Horticulture Department at Almora at the time of his death. It is not in dispute that during his lifetime, neither any charge-sheet nor any show cause notice was issued to him. Petitioner’s husband died, while in service, on 28.04.2021. After his death, an order was passed by the Director, Horticulture and Food Processing on 29.03.2023 whereby the Chief Horticulture Officer, Almora was directed to recover a sum of Rs.14,79,778.50 from the terminal dues of petitioner’s husband, and to deposit the same in government treasury. 2026:UHC:1373-DB 2 2. The basis for making recovery from the terminal dues payable to the petitioner is a report submitted by audit team headed by Senior Finance Officer. Pursuant to the directive issued by Director (Horticulture), Chief Horticulture Officer, Almora passed consequential order on 12.06.2023, asking the petitioner to deposit the amount, referred to in Director’s letter, failing which the amount shall be recovered from the amount payable as gratuity to the petitioner. Petitioner has challenged the recovery orders passed by the authorities of Horticulture Department and has also sought a direction to release the terminal dues. 3. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the direction to recover the amount from the gratuity payable to petitioner’s husband is not based on any finding of fact; no enquiry, whether preliminary or regular, was held based on which petitioner’s husband could be held liable. He submits that charge-sheet was also not issued to petitioner’s husband during his lifetime, therefore, there is no material or basis whatsoever for holding that petitioner’s husband was responsible for the loss to the public exchequer, as alleged in the letter. 4. This Court finds force in the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner. In the absence of any finding of fact, petitioner’s late husband cannot be held responsible. The manner in which petitioner’s late husband has been made scapegoat is in abject disregard of principles of natural justice. It is very easy to shift the blame upon a person who is dead and is not available to defend himself. 2026:UHC:1373-DB 3 5. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 12.06.2023, which is under challenge in this petition, is set aside. The Director (Horticulture) is directed to release all the pending dues to the petitioner within four weeks from today. 6. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 26.02.2026 Rdang