SAVITA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Controversy in the case at hand is with regard to recovery effected from the salary of the petitioner on account of shortage of books in the District Mahima Library, Nahan. Petitioner prior to her transfer to Govt. Degree College, Sangrah, District Sirmour, H.P., was working in District Mahima Library, Nahan and as such, on 14.8.2007, she handed over the charge of the library to new incumbent i.e. respondent No.4. Since handing over of charge on 14.8.2007 was not complete, petitioner was again vide memorandum dated 3.11.2007 was requested to handover the complete charge of the books/articles. Pursuant to aforesaid communication, petitioner handed over the remaining charge of library on 3.12.2007, as is evident from the list of library security papers and list of stock registers, which are duly signed by the petitioner, respondent No.4 and also counter signed by District Librarian, Nahan (Annexure P2 & Annexure P3).

(2.) Subsequently, vide letter dated 24.3.2008, respondent No.4 wrote to the Principal, Government College, Sangrah, District Sirmour that on physical verification 1397 books, amounting to Rs. 31,998.56/ have been found missing and as such, petitioner be directed to either restore the books or to pay the amount. In response to aforesaid communication, petitioner herself sent communication dated 1.5.2008 (Annexure P5) to respondent No.4 claiming therein that since complete charge of District Mahima Library, Nahan was handed over to her on 3.12.2007, it is not understood how 1397 books, amounting to Rs. 31,998.56/ can be said to be found missing. Vide aforesaid communication, petitioner also claimed that since she had given the complete charge on 3.12.2007, she is not under any obligation to pay the amount, as is being indicated in the communication dated 24.3.2008 addressed to Principal, Government College, Sangrah, District Sirmour, H.P.

(3.) Record reveals that subsequent to aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner, respondent No.4 directly sent communication to respondent No.2, i.e. Director of Higher Education, Shimla, H.P., intimating therein factum with regard to shortage of books, who further vide letter 21.9.2008 (Annexure P6), directed respondent No.3 to recover the amount from the petitioner. However, petitioner vide communication dated 12.11.2008 (Annexure P7) addressed to the Director, Higher Education, Shimla, informed that since on 3.12.2007, petitioner had handed over the complete charge of District Mahima Library, Nahan to her successor respondent No.4, she cannot be held liable to pay any amount on account of shortage of books.