IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT APPEAL No.689 of 2010 Date: 13.09.2010 Between: M/s.Bramarambha Wines …..Appellant And: A.Rajesh and others …..Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT APPEAL No.689 of 2010 JUDGMENT:(PER HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM) 1) The writ appeal is misconceived and requires to be dismissed in limini. The respondents in W.P.No.23544 of 2008 are the appellants. The respondent herein filed the writ petition challenging an order dated 06.10.2008 passed by the 2nd appellant herein. By the said order, the writ petitioner was informed that his last pay certificate was received from the Deputy Executive Engineer, Sathupalli advising to recover an amount of Rs.13,11,371/- kept under the personal account of the writ petitioner, the former Additional Assistant Engineer of Tallada towards failure to close the work of Tallada Section of Sathupalli Division and that the amount would be recovered in instalments of Rs.10,000/- per month from his salary, commencing from October, 2008. 2) While setting aside the order, the learned Single Judge observed that even if there is a lapse on the part of the writ petitioner in handing over the charge, the 2nd respondent could have ordered recovery only after issuing a notice to the writ petitioner quantifying the unaccounted for material. But, unilaterally fixing the monetary liability and directing recovery of the amount at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month can not be sustained as in violation of the principles of natural justice. 3) Sri B.Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that Regulation 5A of the regulations governing the writ petitioner enable recovery from the salary of an employee of the whole or in part of such salary of the payee for negligence, misconduct or disobedience to lawful order of the employee in discharge of his duties. It is clear that this provision per se does exclude the requirement to confirm to the principles of natural justice. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Swadeshi Cotton Mills V. Union of India[1] where a statute or a rule does not per s e exclude operation of the principles of natural justice, the principles of natural justice are applicable and will have to be complied with wherever by an order, the State or an instrumentality of the State intends to visit a citizen with adverse civil consequences. This principle is too well settled to warrant an idle parade of familiar authority. 4) On the aforesaid analysis, the writ appeal is misconceived and accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J September 13, 2010 KSH/GK HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT APPEAL No.689 of 2010 September 13, 2010 KSH/GK [1] AIR 1981 SC 818