THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23544 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner functioned as Additional Assistant Engineer in Northern Power Distribution Company Limited. He worked at Thallada, Khammam District between 2001 and 2007. He was transferred to Kothagudem, Khammam District in the year 2007. He states that no regular incumbent was appointed at Tallada and the In-charge Additional Assistant Engineer, by name M.Venkateswar Rao refused to take the charge. He further states that the regular incumbent, who was posted later, by name B.Rama Krishna also refused to take the charge. The Divisional Engineer Electrical (Operations), Kothagudem, respondent No.2 herein, issued proceedings, dated 06.10.2008, directing recovery of a sum of Rs.13,11,371/- in instalments at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. He contends that he was not issued any show cause notice and the amount was unilaterally fixed without any basis. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner was under obligation to account for the material drawn by him for various works executed in Tallada Section and the amount indicated in the impugned proceedings represents the cost of unaccounted for material. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he did not account for the material drawn by him, when he worked in Tallada Section. It may be true that the Additional Assistant Engineer is under obligation to handover the charge in the event of his transfer to another Section, duly indicating the particulars of the material drawn by him for various works, the particulars of the material utilised, and the one which is still remaining. The next incumbent has to take charge of the same and he will be accountable for utilisation of the material. The petitioner states that his efforts to handover the charge either to the In-charge Additional Assistant Engineer or the regular incumbent did not fructify. Even if there was any lapse on the part of the petitioner in handing over the charge, respondent No.2 can order recovery only after issuing notice to the petitioner and quantifying the unaccounted for material. A unilateral order fixing the amount and directing recovery of Rs.10,000/- per month cannot be sustained in law. The proceedings are violative of principles of natural justice. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are set aside. It is, however, left open to respondent No.2 to take necessary steps in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:01.07.2010 kdl