JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal is directed against judgment and order, dated September 26, 1980, passed by a learned Single Judge of our Court m S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 581 of 1973, whereby the learned Single Judge, on a writ application filed by respondents 1 and 2, i.e., Central India Machinery Manufacturing Company, Ltd., and its Factory Manager at its wagon and structural shop division, quashed the demand for recovery of Rs. 1,62,690.25 by way of damages from the respondent-writ- petitioner-company under letter, dated March 3, 1973, issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. 2. The learned Single Judge was, however, satisfied on a challenge made by the writ- petitioner-respondents that in fact the authority to whom the Central Government as an appropriate authority, had delegate the powers under the Act for a proceeding under Section 14B of the Employees Providen Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952, was the State Government. But on the question as to whether there was a due application of mind by the State Government of Rajasthan at all as regards the imposition of the damages under Section 14B of the Act, the learned Single Judge was not satisfied that i was so done by the State Government. Due opportunity was given to both the State Government as well as the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, to produce the relevant records so as to satisfy the Court about the order having been duly passed by the appropriate Government, which in the facts of the present case, was the State Government of Rajasthan. It was an admitted position that on November 15, 1972, a hearing was given by the Additional Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Sri N.K. Joshi, to the writ- petitioner- respondents in the presence of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner when an order to the following effect was passed : "The penal damages, as suggested by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, therefore, may kindly be approved for levying the same from the company through certificate proceedings." 3. The learned Single Judge rightly remarked that it was only a proposal which was submitted by Sri N.K. Joshi, Additional Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Labour and Employment, Labour Commissioner, for approval to some other authority and it cannot do the duty of a penal order imposing damages on the writ- petitioner-company by the State Government. The learned Single Judge rightly remarked that it was only a proposal which was submitted by Sri N.K. Joshi, Additional Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Labour and Employment, Labour Commissioner, for approval to some other authority and it cannot do the duty of a penal order imposing damages on the writ- petitioner-company by the State Government. Moreover, the said note-sheet, dated November 15, 1972, as admittedly recorded by Sri N.K.Joshi, did not reveal that he was functioning for and on behalf of the State Government under due delegation of authority under the rules of business framed by the Government of Rajasthan under Art. 166 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge was not satisfied in fact that whatever was recorded by Sri N.K. Joshi, was so done for and on behalf of the State Government and he held on the other hand that it was a mere recommendation before the State Government for due exercise of its powers under the law. The learned Single Judge having not been satisfied that the penal order with regard to the imposition of damages on the petitioner- company was only passed by the State Government, held that the levying of damages was unauthorised in accordance with the law and as such the order as passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, dated Mardi 3, 1973, was also not authorised under the provisions of the Act and as such the levy was liable to be quashed. 4. It was asserted before us by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the Union of India, who preferred the resent appeal, that by memo No. F.1(4)(23) Shram/66, dated February 9, 1973, Sri N.K. Joshi, Additional Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, communicated to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Rajasthan, the fact that a hearing was accorded to the Central India Machinery Manufacturing Company, Ltd., on November 15, 1972, where the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was also present. The said memo conveyed sanction for levy of damages of Rs. 1, 62,690.25 under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, as per details given out thereunder : (1) Damages of PF contribution 1,59,815.50 (2) Damages on administration charges 2, 874.75 Total 1,62,690.25 The said memo further communicated the fact that the department sanctions previously issued, vide the department's letter of even number, dated December 13, 1972, might be treated as cancelled. 5. 5. If really the earlier sanction, dated December 13, 1972, was treated as cancelled we really fail to appreciate as to how the hearing accorded to the writ-petitioner- respondents on November 15, 1972, could clinch the issue as regards the imposition of damages by way of a penal order under Section 14B of the statute. That apart, even in the month of December 1972, a communication was made to the writ petitioners to the effect that they had already been informed about the penal order by way of damages under Section 14B of the statute and the writ-petitioner- company was insisting upon communication of a valid order passed in a particular perspective. Sadly enough, no communication was made whatsoever, till January 18, 1973, when the Factory Manager was communicated about imposition of penalty by Sri N.K. Joshi, Additional Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan. Another letter was sent by the Factory Manager to the Secretary Department of Labour, on January 27, 1973, in answer to the demand for imposition of damages under Section 14B of the statute. By the letter, dated March 17, 1 973, which was received by the writ-petitioner company on March 22, 1973, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, wrote to the writ- petitioners that under Section 14B, the State Government as the appropriate authority, has imposed penal damages to that extent of Rs.1,62,690.25 after hearing the company's authorised representative on November 15, 1972, and thus its contention that no opportunity was afforded by the State Government, was not correct. Unfortunately, if the earliersanction treated as cancelled and was replaced by a fresh sanction, no hearing was accorded to the writ-petitioners after the latter sanction was so accorded. That apart, the original file from the State Government was not available to clinch the issue as to who was the authority of the State Government that accorded the hearing to the writ-petitioners in this context. Learned advocate for the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner could not satisfy us on the point that it was not Sri N.K. Joshi but some one else who heard the writ-petitioners in this regard. Learned advocate for the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner could not satisfy us on the point that it was not Sri N.K. Joshi but some one else who heard the writ-petitioners in this regard. The best evidence by way of production of the original file not being made available, we have to take an inference adverse to the department in this context that no appropriate and proper hearing was accorded by the State Government in this regard and only a recommendation by Sri N.K. Joshi, the Additional Secretary and the Labour Commissioner, might have been wrongly construed as the apposite sanctioning of levy of damages by the State Government. Even memo No. Fl(4)(23) Shram/66, dated February 9, 1973, does not improve the situation and it also betrays the fact that the earlier sanction has been replaced by a further sanction so accorded on February 9, 1973. No hearing was accorded followed by a due and opposite sanction in accordance with the law. We are afraid, we cannot interfere in this disputed question of fact where the learned Single Judge was himself satisfied, on appreciation of the evidence that in fact that State Government did not accord due and apposite hearing to the writ-petitioners before imposing the penal order of damages under Section 14B of the statute. 6. We think that the appeal deserves a dismissal and we direct accordingly. Let the appeal be treated as dismissed The appellant should pay a cost of Rs.340 to the writ- petition respondents *******