KAUSHAL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER who is an employee of State of Haryana has filed the present writ petition challenging the order Annexure P/14 vide which it had been decided to initiate action against the petitioner to recover the house building loan amount with penal interest.

(2.) FACTS shortly stated are :petitioner applied for the grant of house building loan for the purchase of a plot at Chandigarh. On the submission of the application, he was sanctioned loan of Rs. 14,040/- at the first instance and subsequently in the installments of Rs. 10,800/-, Rs. 10,160/- and Rs. 4,000/- the total of which comes to Rs. 39,000/ -. First instalment was disbursed in the year 1968 and the last in the year 1974. Instead of purchasing residential plot at Chandigarh and making construction on the same, petitioner brought a shop-cum-residence at Inderpuri Extension New Delhi measuring 200 square yards This plot was mortgaged by the petitioner with the Governor of Haryana on 24-10-1969 Copy of the mortgage deed has been attached as Annexure P. 2 with the writ petition. In the mortgage deed, it is mentioned that the plot purchased was a shop-cum residential plot. A complaint was made against the petitioner which was referred to the Vigilance Department for enquiry as the loan was taken for constructing the house at Chandigarh whereas the plot was purchased at Delhi without obtaining prior permission of the competent authority. In the year 1977, it was found that the petitioner had misutilised the advanced loan. Petitioner was proceeded under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 and a show cause notice was issued to him. The Director, Sahitya Academy Haryana, was asked to enquire into the allegations of misutilisation of the house building advance by the petitioner. In reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner did not submit the reply on merits and claimed that he be shown certain documents. The documents were not shown to the petitioner as the authorities thought that they were not of such a nature without which the petitioner could not submit his reply.

(3.) GOVERNMENT of Haryana issued instructions vide F D letter No. 4264. WM- (I) 73/33307 dated 27th August, 1973 for dealing with the Government employees misusing the house building advance laving down the procedure to be adopted for its recovery. The instructions reads as under: