THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.NO.2996 OF 2001 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted to restrain the 3rd respondent from recovering a sum of Rs.905/- per month from the salary of the writ petitioner. The facts of this case are in a very narrow compass. The writ petitioner was working as a Conductor with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (‘the Corporation’, for short). He has offered surety for one Sri E. Lakshman Goud, who was also working as a Conductor with the Corporation, enabling him to avail House Building Advance, in a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- . In two separate installments, a sum of Rs.60,000/- each time was released in favour of Sri Lakshman Goud. For a proven misconduct, Sri E. Lakshman Goud, was removed from service in the year 1999. Consequently, the recovery, which is effected from the salary of the said Lakshman Goud, on month to month basis @ Rs.905/-, had been stopped. Hence, the 3rd respondent has ordered unilaterally for recovery of a sum of Rs.905/-, from the salary payable to the writ petitioner from the month of January 2000 onwards and it was continued up to 30th April 2001, i.e., for nearly sixteen-months period, till such time this Court passed an interim Order restraining such a recovery by the respondents on 19- 04-2001. Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the writ petitioner has raised an objection at the time the second installment of the House Building Advance is released in favour of Sri Lakshman Goud, as he has an apprehension that the said Advance released to the Lakshman Goud, is not being put to proper use by him. However, no steps are taken by the Corporation to verify the statement of the writ petitioner or take any corrective measures in that regard. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that the liability has to be first fixed and if any monies are payable to the principal borrower, they must be withheld and adjusted towards the unpaid installments of the House Building Advance, but the respondent Corporation again unilaterally proceeded to recover the unpaid installments from the salary of the writ petitioner. Though the Corporation has resisted the claim of the writ petitioner by filing a detailed counter affidavit, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, upon instructions, has stated at the Bar that subsequently, Sri E. Lakshman Goud – the principal borrower was reinstated into service and consequently, the monthly installments towards Housing Building Advance, are also being recovered from his salary and allowances. Therefore, the learned Standing Counsel would submit that the cause in this writ petition would not survive for further adjudication. While it could be a fact that the writ petitioner herein stood as surety to one of his colleagues, who has availed a House Building Advance from the Corporation, the Corporation must take necessary steps for recovering the money due from the principal borrower. Along with the principal borrower, the liability can be fixed on 3rd party sureties. Without fixing any such liability, the Corporation cannot unilaterally by its orders effect recovery of the unpaid installments of House Building Advance availed by the employee/principal borrower, by making recoveries from the salaries of the sureties. However, as the learned Standing Counsel informs that the said principal borrower has since been reinstated to service and the unpaid installments are also being recovered from his salary and allowances, it is, therefore, not proper to retain the money recovered from the salary of the writ petitioner from January 2000 to April 2001. The respondents will, therefore, take necessary steps to refund the entire money so recovered from the writ petitioner within a reasonable period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. The respondents will ensure that the corresponding liability of payment of 16 installments is specifically fastened to the said E. Lakshman Goud. It shall also be open to the respondents to verify the correctness or otherwise of the statement made by the writ petitioner that the House Building Advance released in favour of Sri E. Lakshman Goud, has not been put to proper use and take necessary measures, in case of any default or failure committed by the said E. Lakshman Goud. With this, the writ petition stands allowed as indicated supra. No costs. -------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J 15th December 2009 mrk