THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 25180 of 1999 Dated: 20.01.2011 Between: P.G.Chowdary, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another. … Respondent THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 25180 of 1999 O R D E R : The petitioner herein retired from the service as Deputy Commissioner of Endowments on attaining the age of supperannuation on 31.10.1994. Long thereafter, the Commissioner of Endowments-the 2nd respondent herein by proceedings dated 04.06.1999 called upon the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.18,410/- being the salary paid to one B.Babu Rao, Record Assistant of Sri Dasanjaneya Swami temple, Machavaram, Vijayawada, purportedly in terms of the order passed by the Upa-Lokayukta dated 09.11.1998. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the 1st respondent, which was dismissed by order dated 12.10.1999. Hence, the present writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. Despite notice, the respondents did not choose to file counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since the petitioner had retired from service on 31.10.1994, the 2nd respondent had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 04.06.1999. It is also contended that since the proceedings were initiated before the Lokayukta, after the retirement of the petitioner on the basis of a complaint allegedly made in September, 1997, the investigation made by the Upa-Lokayukta and the order dated 09.11.1998 directing recovery from the petitioner itself was illegal and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned proceedings issued by the Commissioner on the basis of the order of Upa-Lokayukta dated 09.11.1998 is equally bad and liable to be set aside. As noticed above, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and that the averments in the writ petition remained un-contradicted. Moreover, as could be seen from the material available on record, no opportunity was provided to the petitioner to make his representation in the proceedings before the Lokayukta. It is apparent from the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent that the recovery was ordered merely on the basis of the order dated 09.11.1998 passed by the Upa-Lokayukta without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without making any further enquiry. It is also apparent that no reasons have been assigned by the 2nd respondent while directing recovery under the impugned proceedings. Thus, on the face of it, the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the fundamental principles of natural justice. The order passed by the 1st respondent dismissing the revision petition preferred by the petitioner is also cryptic and devoid of any reasons. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 04.06.1999 as upheld by the 1st respondent by order dated 12.10.1999 is hereby set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. _______________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 20 .01.2011 KLP