Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/418/2018 on 11 June, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:4845-DB
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
SPA/418/2018
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
1. Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel
for the appellant.
2. Ms. Sazia Parveen, Advocate
holding brief of Mr. Parikshit Saini,
learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Indian Institute of Technology,
Roorkee has filed this intra-court appeal
challenging the judgment dated
05.04.2018 passed by learned Single
Judge in WPSS No. 1459 of 2013. By the
said judgment, writ petition filed by
respondent, challenging an order dated
16/20.05.2013 passed by Deputy
Registrar (Administration), whereby he
was asked to deposit ₹19,052/- towards
price of 160 books which were found
missing from the Library, was allowed.
4. Operative portion of the impugned
judgment is reproduced below:-
"Moreover, there is no evidence available
on record to suggest, even remotely, that
when the petitioner was made temporary
Librarian, any stock verification of the entire
books was made. It was incumbent upon the
respondent to prepare the inventory at the
time when the petitioner was handed over the
charge of all the books.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Order,
under challenge, is quashed and set aside with
all consequential benefits."
5. IIT, Roorkee has challenged the
said judgment on the ground that the
order for recovery of ₹19,052/- was
passed after issuing show cause notice to
the writ petitioner (respondent herein)
2025:UHC:4845-DB
and after considering his reply, the
order, impugned in the writ petition, was
passed.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent,
however, submits that in his reply to the
show cause notice, respondent had
specifically stated that at the time of
handing over charge of Library to him,
verification of the number of books
available in the Library, was not done.
7. The reply to the show cause notice
is on record as Annexure 9 to the writ
petition, wherein respondent has
categorically stated that the stock
verification of the Library was not done
since last more than ten years. The
defence taken by respondent, in his reply
to the show cause notice, was not
considered while passing the order of
recovery. Issuance of show cause notice
is not an empty formality and the reply
given by a person to the show cause
notice has to be considered and
discussed.
8. In the order dated 16/20.05.2013,
the defence taken by respondent was not
considered and the order of recovery was
mechanically passed. Learned Single
Judge has given valid reasons for setting
aside the order of recovery.
9. After hearing learned counsel for
the parties and after careful perusal of
the impugned judgment, we do not find
any scope for interference in the matter.
Accordingly, the special appeal fails and
is dismissed.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
11.06.2025
Aswal
NITI RAJ Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1
SINGH ASWAL
369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F46
10C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL
Date: 2025.06.12 01:11:45 -07'00'
