THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.6655 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is employed as Judo Coach by the Sports Authority of A.P., the 2nd respondent herein. He has also functioned as District Sports Development Officer at Warangal. In the course of inspection that was conducted during his tenure at Warangal, it was found that a sum of Rs.5,50,500/- was not accounted for. The 2nd respondent passed an order dated 02.06.2008, directing recovery of Rs.5,50,534/- with interest at 24% per annum. An inspection was caused into the accounts pertaining to the activities undertaken by the petitioner, during his tenure at Sanga Reddy. A charge memo was issued on 16.05.2002, alleging that the petitioner did not account for Rs.7,50,500/-. The petitioner submitted his explanation, denying the charge. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and he submitted a report on 31.05.2008, holding that the charges have not been proved. Taking that into account, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 11.06.2008, directing recovery of Rs.7,50,500/-, from the petitioner, with interest at 12%, per annum. Therefore, the petitioner challenges the two proceedings, referred to above. He contends that there was no justification for the 2nd respondent in straight away directing recovery of the amount, even while disciplinary proceedings are pending in respect of the matter. Heard Sri M.Panduranga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for the 1st respondent and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. It appears that the inspection was caused into the functioning of the petitioner as District Sports Development Officer for Warangal and Medak Districts. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated, on the basis of a memo. It appears that an Enquiry Officer was appointed, in relation to the allegations against the petitioner pertaining to his functioning in Medak District, and submitted a report to the effect that the charges framed against the petitioner are not proved. Though the 2nd respondent has the power to differ with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, he is under obligation to issue notice to the petitioner, before adopting such a course. However, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, he not only differed with the findings, but also proceeded to direct recovery of the amount. Even where the charges are held proved, it is only after the final order, imposing any punishment is passed; that recovery of the amount can be ordered. The impugned proceedings, referred to above, cannot be sustained in law. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the proceedings dated 02.06.2008 and 11.06.2008, issued by the 2nd respondent, are set aside. It is, however, left open to him to take necessary steps in the disciplinary proceedings, initiated against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:18.08.2011 GJ