1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 28.04.2014 CORAM The Hon'ble Ms. Justice K.B.K.VASUKI W.P.No.7439 of 2002 V.Kalyanasundaram .. Petitioner vs. Assistant Director of Agriculture, Orathanadu, Thanjavur District. .. Respondent Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.4876 of 2002 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order of Recovery passed by the respondent herein in his proceedings N.Aa.1775/2001, dated 12.10.2001 and quash the same. For Petitioner ... Ms.V.Anitha For Respondent ... M/s.M.E.Rani Selvam Additional Govt. Pleader ORDER This writ petition is filed against the impugned order, in under which, Rs.42,092/- is sought to be recovered from the petitioner holding him responsible for the loss sustained by the respondent 2 department for non distribution of bio-fertilizers and seeds before the date of its expiry. 2.The few facts relevant for consideration herein are that the bio-fertilizers and seeds were inspected by the Assistant Director of Agriculture (Quality Control), who found that the bio-fertilizers and seeds had crossed the date of expiry and the same were destroyed. As the petitioner was working as Agriculture Officer at Thiruvonam, during the relevant point of time, the petitioner along with other five Assistant Agriculture Officers were found responsible for the loss and the loss was equally apportioned among them. Hence, the respondent department issued the impugned order of recovery dated 12.10.2001. Against which the petitioner filed O.A.No.4876 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the same was transferred to this Court by way of present writ petition. 3.The impugned order is challenged by the petitioner, mainly on the ground that the recovery order was passed without issuing any show cause notice and charge memo and without holding any enquiry and without affording reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 3 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought the attention of this Court to the impugned order, which does not disclose the holding of any enquiry. Though the respondent in his counter categorically stated that enquiry was conducted and the impugned order was the outcome of such enquiry, neither a copy of the show cause notice or charge memo nor the report of the Enquiry Officer was given to the petitioner. 5.The learned Additional Government Pleader representing the respondent, in support of his contention, produced the report of the Enquiry Officer and the second show cause notice of the proposed punishment etc., before the Court. But, the respondent department failed to prove that due enquiry was held in the manner known to law and the charges regarding the act of negligence on the part of the officer concerned resulting in loss to the Government stood proved as such, the impugned order is per se illegal, contrary to law and in violation of the principles of natural justice. On this score alone, the impugned order is held to be unsustainable and is liable to be quashed. 4 K.B.K.VASUKI,J cla 6.In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order stands quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioner is concerned. No costs. 28.04.2014 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No cla To Assistant Director of Agriculture, Orathanadu, Thanjavur District. W.P.No.7439 of 2002 28.04.2014