IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 9328 of 1999 Between: B. Gopal S/o.B. Somala, R/o.Kodad, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad.A.P. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nalgonda, A.P. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kodad, Nalgonda District. A.P. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring the action of the respondents in carrying the recovery proceedings vide Procs.No.01/36(2)/97-KDD Dt.7-7-1998 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 of the Constitition of India and consequently direct the respondents not to recover any amount from the petitioner's salary and to restore the annual increments for the period of 3 years with cumulative effect and to repay the entire recovered amount deducted from the petitioner's salary, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.PALLENAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 9328 of 1999 ORDER: Based on the report of the Test Audit Inspection, said to have been held during the period from 27.10.1997 to 06.11.1997, a sum of Rs.41,727/- was directed to be recovered from the petitioner vide proceedings of the third respondent dated 23.11.1997 which order was partially modified in proceedings dated 07.07.1998. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said orders, directing recovery, were made without putting him on notice and without giving him an opportunity of being heard. Smt. B.G. Umadevi, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, while conceding that no notice was issued to the petitioner would, however, request this Court to treat the impugned order of recovery as a show cause notice and direct the petitioner to submit his reply thereto. I see no reason to don the robes of the Depot Manager and hold that this order should be treated as a show cause notice. Since the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice, it is liable to be quashed. Needless to state that quashing of the order would not preclude the respondents from taking action against the petitioner for recovery of any amounts due to the Corporation, in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________________________ Date: 19.03.2008 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BDLNM}