Judgment :- The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records relating to the proceedings dated 20.6.1995 consequent suspension of payment of pension order dated 24.10.1989 by the first respondent and consequential order passed by the third respondent dated 28.2.1996 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 3 to restore the payment of freedom fighters pension to the petitioner from 24.10.1989 being the alleged date of cancellation and continue to pay the said pension amount with arrears on the basis and under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. 2. The petitioner, who is no more was a freedom fighter and he was receiving pension under Scheme of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension. Subsequent to his death, his wife has been impleaded by substitution. 3. According to the petitioner, he took part in several freedom struggle for the Independence of India against the British Rule. In 1942 revolution ,he had undergone imprisonment from 11.11.1942 to 5.3.1943. On a sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai under DOI Rules,he was kept in Central Prison, Madurai and his convict number is 4582. The petitioner further contends that after the implementation of the Swantantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1972, he applied for pension in the prescribed form on 10.8.1991, after obtaining necessary certificates. The first respondent passed an order sanctioning a sum of Rs.300/- per month as pension to him under political head in recognition of his freedom struggle involvement. He was receiving pension with effect from 1.8.1980. Suddenly after seven years, the 1st respondent abruptly suspended the payment of pension forthwith until further orders by his proceedings dated 24.10.1989, a show cause notice was issued to him calling upon him to submit explanation why the payment of pension to him should not be cancelled on the following grounds: "a. Shri R.P.Kalimuthu is not a Freedom Fighter and he is getting the Pension by producing false certificate. b. The extract of Central Jail, Madurai furnished by Shri R.P.Kalimuthu do not tally with the actual entries found in the convict register of Central Jail, Madurai. c. An extract of convict Register relating to convict No.4582 which actually relates to One Shri Palanisamy who was convicted under Section 381 and 414 of I.P.C as reported by the Superintendent of Central Jail, Madurai. d. The document produced by the applicant have not been found genuine". 4. c. An extract of convict Register relating to convict No.4582 which actually relates to One Shri Palanisamy who was convicted under Section 381 and 414 of I.P.C as reported by the Superintendent of Central Jail, Madurai. d. The document produced by the applicant have not been found genuine". 4. According to the petitioner, he has submitted his explanation within 21 days and reply was sent by the petitioner through registered post on 2.11.1989. The petitioner also made a subsequent representation to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai requesting him to furnish a copy of the convict register pertaining to the petitioner and personal interview with him. But the said representation was returned on 4.11.1989 with certain querries. On 15.11.1989, the petitioner furnished all required particulars to the fourth respondent along with the certificate dated 11.6.1981 issued by the then Jail Superintendent . The petitioner further states that the fourth respondent in his proceedings No.17480/Tha/Ku.3/89 sent a reply stating that the relevant register was sent to the Court in connection with some other Criminal Case and he is not in a position to verify the same. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Court of Judicial Magistrate for obtaining a copy of the register. However, the said copy application was returned by the Court by making an endorsement that no such document has been filed before the Court. Hence the above writ petition. 5. A counter has been filed by the Union Government contending that in terms of his representation dated 27.7.1981 for grant of freedom fighters pension through the State Government,the State Government has recommended the case of the petitioner to grant freedom fighters pension. On the strength of the recommendation of the State Government, the Central Government had sanctioned the pension for a sum of Rs.300/- per month with effect from 1.8.1980. The State Government by its letter dated 29.7.1987 informed the first respondent that the petitioner had made a representation for the State pension and while considering the said representation,it was reported that the extracts of Central Jail, Madurai, furnished by the petitioner do not tally with the actual entries found in the convict register of Central Jail, Madurai. It is also further stated that convict No.4582 actually relates to one Palanisamy, who was convicted under Section 381 and 414 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tirupattur. It is also further stated that convict No.4582 actually relates to one Palanisamy, who was convicted under Section 381 and 414 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tirupattur. It was also stated that the dates of entry and the identification mark also differ from the extracts furnished by the applicant. The State Government in the said circumstances, requested the respondent to suspend the pension after giving a show cause notice . It is further stated that after issuing the show cause notice,21 days time was given for submission of the explanation of the petitioner. The petitioner did not send any explanation to the above said show cause notice. Consequently, the first respondent cancelled the provisional pension and requested the second respondent to recover the amount already paid to the petitioner. The first respondent further contends that the petitioner had approached this Court only when the second respondent had taken steps to recover the amount paid to the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no justification or basis for the allegations made against the petitioner that he has produced a false certificate. To the show cause notice, he had promptly sent a reply on 2.11.1989 and the same was sent by a registered post and also duly acknowledged by respondents. In the explanation to the show cause notice, he had denied any manipulation of the records. 7. Therefore, the above stated facts clearly indicate that the petitioner had taken all efforts at his level by approaching the Superintendent , Central Jail, Madurai as well as the criminal court before whom, it was alleged that the records have been sent. On 15.11.1989 he had sent a representation to the Superintendent of Central Jail, Madurai requesting a copy of the Jail Register. To this, a reply was sent by the Superintendent on 27.11.1989 informing the petitioner that since the records have been filed before the criminal Court, it was not possible to verify the correctness of the particulars. After obtaining the information as regards the case in which the record has been allegedly filed, namely C.C.No.637/1989 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, he had approached the criminal Court also and has applied for a copy of the same on 8.3.1996. After obtaining the information as regards the case in which the record has been allegedly filed, namely C.C.No.637/1989 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, he had approached the criminal Court also and has applied for a copy of the same on 8.3.1996. The criminal Court had returned the application by stating that no such record has been lodged with the Court. 8. The aforesaid facts clearly indicate that the petitioner has done everything at his level best. On the other hand, no proper enquiry was conducted by the respondents and no materials have also been furnished to the petitioner on the basis of which action was alleged to have been taken. The least which should have been done by the first respondent is that even along with the show cause notice, all the materials on the basis of which action was sought to be taken against him, should have been furnished to the petitioner. Even apart from that, the petitioner has sent a proper reply to the show cause notice on 2.11.1989 which is clearly established by the production of the acknowledgement card. The cover addressed to the Government of India, Bharat Sakar, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, which has been addressed properly has been received by the Department with their seal. Therefore,the stand taken in the counter that they have not received any reply or explanation from the petitioner cannot at all be sustained. 9.The stand taken by the first respondent in its counter is also proved to be wrong by a perusal of the communication from the Central Government itself dated 20.6.1995. That letter is addressed to the Accountant General, Tamil Nadu informing the Accountant General that the sanction accorded in favour of the petitioner was cancelled with retrospective effect and the following is the text of the letter. Sir, I am directed to invite a reference to this Ministry's letter No.129/953/81-FF(SZ) dated 27.3.1982 provisionally sanctioning a pension of Rs.300/- per month(Rupees three hundred only) to Shri R.P.Kalimuthu, S/o R.Perumal, 20-B,S.M.Pillai Colony, Anna Nagar, Sathamangalam of Madurai District, which was subsequently suspended vide this letter No.129/953/81-FF(SZ) dated 24.10.1989 and to say that the sanction accorded therein may be treated as cancelled with retrospective effect. It is requested that necessary action be taken to recover the amount already paid to the applicant. Yours faithfully Sd/-S.K.Jain Under Secy. To the Govt.of India 10. It is requested that necessary action be taken to recover the amount already paid to the applicant. Yours faithfully Sd/-S.K.Jain Under Secy. To the Govt.of India 10. A perusal of the above letter discloses that no enquiry has been conducted on the show cause notice issued against the petitioner. The first respondent appears to have ignored the explanation and proceeded further by cancelling the pension without any proper enquiry. 11. It is rather unfortunate that the first respondent should have dealt with the issue in such a very careless and callousness manner. The very stand taken by the respondents that they have not received any explanation from the petitioner is proved to be otherwise. The least on which expected is that the first respondent should have furnished all materials on the basis of which action was sought to be taken against the petitioner. Even now, before this Court, inspite of several earlier adjournments, the connected file has not been produced. 12. With the result, there being no proper material for having cancelled the pension, the petitioner is entitled to succeed . This writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.No.793 of 1996 is closed.