Short Note : The petitioner was appointed lower division clerk in the Government Engineering College-Jabalpur, in January 1961. By order, dated 11th October 1966, the petitioner was appointed temporarily until further orders as a store-keeper. The pay scale of the store-keeper was the same as that of the lower division clerk. The Principal passed an order directing recovery of Rs. 3,385.69 from the petitioner and by another order petitioner was reverted to the post of lower division clerk. Held : As regards the question whether the order reverting the petitioner from the post of store-keeper to the post of lower division clerk is illegal or not, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order amounts to reduction in rank. This Court, however, finds from the return that the post of store-keeper was not a higher post. The scale of pay of the store-keeper was the same as that of the lower division clerk. The person working as store-keeper got in addition only a social pay of Rs. 10 per month. The petitioner's appointment as store-keeper was only a temporary appointment until further orders. The petitioner had no right to the post of store-keeper. In the circumstances, the order reverting the petitioner to the post of lower division clerk cannot be considered to be an order of reduction in rank. 2. The question then remains whether the order directing the recovery of Rs. 3,385.69 from the petitioner is valid or not. The respondents support the order of recovery as an order imposing a minor penalty under rule 10(iii) of tile Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Under that provision, recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by a Government servant to the Government by negligence or breach of orders is a minor penalty. This penalty can be imposed after following the procedure laid down in rule 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the procedure laid down in rule 16 had not been followed. He further contends that there was no finding bringing the case within rule 10(iii). This penalty can be imposed after following the procedure laid down in rule 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the procedure laid down in rule 16 had not been followed. He further contends that there was no finding bringing the case within rule 10(iii). The recovery of any pecuniary loss from the pay of a Government servant can be ordered as a minor penalty only when it is found that the loss has been caused to the Government "by negligence or breach of orders." The notice which has to be issued before imposing this penalty under rule 16(1)(a) must inform the Government servant that he is made liable for the loss caused to the Government be his negligence or breach of any order. In the instant case, the notice does not allege that loss was caused to the Government by negligence of the petitioner. The notice only states that the committee found the petitioner liable for the loss. The committee did not find any employee directly responsible for the loss. Indeed, the committee reported that the question of recovery of the loss did not arise as no one could be held responsible for the loss. The final order directing the recovery also does not contain any clear finding that the loss was caused to the Government by the petitioner's negligence or breach of any order. In the opinion of this Court, therefore, the order directing the recovery of, loss from the petitioner cannot be sustained. Petition partly allowed.