JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 15.03.99 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition being Civil Rule No. 27/1999 filed by the Petitioner, who is the Appellant herein. By the said order the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground that the disputed question of fact involved in the writ petition cannot be settled in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. As narrated in the impugned order itself, the writ petition was filed making a grievance against deductions being made from the monthly salary bills of the Petitioner towards liquidation of an amount of Rs. 42,718,50/- which was allegedly outstanding against the Petitioner during his incumbency as Range Officer under the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (TTAADC). According to the Petitioner/Appellant, by letter dated 21.12.95 issued by the Deputy Principal Officer (Forest) of TTAADC, he was requested to take over possession of certain land towards construction the Range Office building. Thereafter, by letter dated 27.05.97 issued by the Principal Officer, TTAADC requested the Petitioner to confirm whether he had taken possession of the land. This letter was preceded by another letter dated 24.05.97 by which the Petitioner was informed that there was a ledger balance of Rs. 42,718.50/- against the Petitioner during his incumbency as Range Officer under the TTAADC. Be it stated here that the Petitioner was on deputation to TTAADC and his parent department is Forest Department. 3. In respect of the aforesaid amount, the Petitioner and the authorities of the TTAADC made certain correspondences. While the Petitioner denied his liability against the said amount, the TTAADC insisted that the Petitioner was liable to make refund of the said amount and the same was treated to be outstanding against him. In this connection the TTAADC issued the impugned letters dated 24.05.97 and 26.03.97 (Annexure 4 and 7 to the writ petition). The contents of the letter dated 24.05.97 have been indicated above. By Annexure 7 letter dated 26.03.97, the Petitioner was directed to furnish his explanation relating to submission of certain alleged fictitious bills. Be it stated here that the said letter dated 26.03.97 was not by way of initiation of any departmental proceeding. The Petitioner duly replied to the said letter dated 26.03.97. By Annexure 7 letter dated 26.03.97, the Petitioner was directed to furnish his explanation relating to submission of certain alleged fictitious bills. Be it stated here that the said letter dated 26.03.97 was not by way of initiation of any departmental proceeding. The Petitioner duly replied to the said letter dated 26.03.97. However, without passing any order and without intimating anything to the Petitioner, the Respondents started making recovery from the monthly salary bills of the Petitioner. Such deductions were made from the month of November, 1998. For the said month recovery was made to the tune of 1000/- and for the month of December 1998, recovery was made for an amount of Rs. 4,000/-. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the writ petition registered and numbered as the Civil Rule No. 27/1999. 4. Further grievance raised in the writ petition was that certain TA bills for the period from 1996 to December, 1998 including transfer TA bills submitted in February, 1996 were withheld by the Respondents. According to the Petitioner the withheld amount against TA bills was for Rs. 24,874.75/- and the transfer TA bill amounted was Rs. 7525/-. In paragraph 14 and 15 of the writ petition, the Petitioner justified his action towards payment of the amount of Rs. 41,718.50/-. Thus it was the case of the Petitioner that he was not responsible for the aforesaid amount and that the Respondents without resorting to any departmental enquiry could not have made deductions from his salary bills and withheld the aforesaid TA bills. 5. The Respondents did not file any counter affidavit in the writ petition. Even in the appeal which is pending since 1999, no counter has been filed. However, a counter affidavit was filed against the prayer for interim relief made in C.M. Application No. 35/1999 in Civil Rule No. 27/1999. In the said affidavit, the Respondents justified their action in making the deductions. According to them there was discrepancy in the matter of alleged transaction pertaining to the land in question. However, a counter affidavit was filed against the prayer for interim relief made in C.M. Application No. 35/1999 in Civil Rule No. 27/1999. In the said affidavit, the Respondents justified their action in making the deductions. According to them there was discrepancy in the matter of alleged transaction pertaining to the land in question. In paragraph 9 of the affidavit, the Respondents themselves posed the question "...Now the questions which is true and whether at all payment was made or if it is fact that the amount was paid on 15.07.97 then the question automatically comes up where the amount was lying in due course." Certain disputes were also raised relating to the authenticity of the TA bills submitted by the Petitioner. However, they stated in the affidavit that the matter was under process. The tenor of the contentions raised in the said affidavit was that the Petitioner was guilty of certain misconduct. 6. It was in the aforesaid background of the case, the learned Single Judge was called upon to answer the writ petition. According to the learned Single Judge, the writ petition was not maintainable being involved with disputed questions of fact and by the impugned order dated 15.03.99 the writ petition was dismissed. However, it was provided that the parties might settle their disputes in a competent Civil Court, if so advised. It is the legality and validity of the said order of the learned Single Judge which has been assailed in this writ appeal. 7. We have heard Mr. C.S. Sinha, assisted by Mr. D.C. Saha learned Counsel for the writ Petitioner/Appellant and Mr. U.B. Saha, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, Tripura assisted by Mr. T.D. Majumdar, learned Advocate. We have also heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the TTAADC. 8. Mr. Sinha argued that the entire action on the part of the Respondents was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. He submitted that no recovery could have been made from the salary bills of the Petitioner without following the established procedure and passing any order to that effect. He also submitted that withholding of the TA bills without assigning any reasons was unjust and arbitrary. Mr. He submitted that no recovery could have been made from the salary bills of the Petitioner without following the established procedure and passing any order to that effect. He also submitted that withholding of the TA bills without assigning any reasons was unjust and arbitrary. Mr. Sinha, submitted that the writ petition ought to have been entertained by the learned Single Judge on merit having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case and that writ jurisdiction was the appropriate remedy for the Petitioner. 9. Mr. U.B. Saha, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, defended the action of the Respondents towards making the recovery. According to him it being not a case of causing pecuniary loss to the Government as contemplated under the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules and the amount being admitted, there was no question of resorting to any regular departmental proceeding before making the recovery. Referring to the stand in the aforesaid affidavit, he submitted that so far as the TA bills are concerned, same were under process and that by this time might have been paid to the Petitioner/Appellant. learned Counsel for the TTAADC, Mr. S. Chakraborty adopted the argument advanced by Mr. Saha and justified the impugned action by referring to the stand in the said affidavit. Both Mr. Saha and Mr. Chakraborty appearing for the Respondents argued that the learned Single Judge was justified in not entertaining the writ petition. 10. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. We have also perused the materials available on records. Learned Single judge after noticing the fact that deductions were being made from the monthly salary bills of the Petitioner/Appellant in reference to the contentions raised in the writ petition held that such disputed questions of fact couldn't be gone into in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On that score alone, the writ petition was dismissed providing that the parties might approach the Civil Court for resolving the dispute. We are of the considered opinion that if the contentions raised by the parties involved disputed questions of fact requiring to resolve the same through Civil Court, an answer ought to have been given to the legality and validity of the recoveries being made against the Petitioner/Appellant without resolving such a dispute. We are of the considered opinion that if the contentions raised by the parties involved disputed questions of fact requiring to resolve the same through Civil Court, an answer ought to have been given to the legality and validity of the recoveries being made against the Petitioner/Appellant without resolving such a dispute. While holding that the writ petition involved disputed questions of fact, the learned Single Judge did not say anything as to the propriety on the part of the Respondents to make recovery from the salary of the Petitioner as if the dispute was already settled. 11. It was the specific case of the Petitioner that he was not liable to pay any amount and no amount was outstanding against the Petitioner. The Respondents also did not rebut such specific pleas raised by the Petitioner, by filing any counter. Be that as it may, the simple question involved in the writ petition was as to whether the Respondents could have resorted to making recovery from the salary of the Petitioner without passing any formal order to that effect and holding the Petitioner guilty of causing pecuniary loss to the TTAADC, which needless to say could have been only after following the procedure laid down in the Rules relating to departmental proceeding. From the documents available on records, it appears that the parties made claim and counter claim relating to the aforesaid amount of Rs. 42,718.50/- and there is nothing to indicate that the liability of the Petitioner against the said amount was conclusively established. Even if, it is held to be established in the administrative side of the Respondents, in view of total denial on the part of the Petitioner/Appellant, the Respondents could not have resorted to the impugned action by passing the procedure to be followed in such a matter. If the Petitioner was responsible for causing any pecuniary loss to the TTAADC, the authorities were at liberty to take recourse to the due procedure to be followed in such matter. They could not have resorted to make recovery from the salary bills of the Petitioner without putting him to notice in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 12. They could not have resorted to make recovery from the salary bills of the Petitioner without putting him to notice in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 12. There is no dispute that except intimating the Petitioner that the aforesaid amount was outstanding against him, the Petitioner was not put to any kind of notice towards making the recovery from his salary bills learned Counsel for the parties agreed at the bar that the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is applicable to the Petitioner. Rule 11 of the said Rules prescribes the penalties which can be imposed for good and sufficient reasons. Under the head Minor Penalties, punishment of recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government by negligence or breach of orders has been provided. For imposition of such a penalty procedure has been laid down under Rule 16 of the said Rules. If the Respondents were of the opinion that the Petitioner was guilty of causing pecuniary loss to the Government, they could not have decided the issue in the administrative side and ought to have taken recourse to the aforesaid provisions of the Rules, more particularly, when there was total denial on the part of the Petitioner/Appellant. 13. A similar question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Samaresh Ch. Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam and Anr. as reported in (1992) 2 GLR 48. In that case also the Petitioner therein was directed to deposit a particular amount being the value of the irrecoverable part of stock materials fraudulently issued by the Petitioner to a contractor. The Petitioner was also intimated that on failure to deposit the amount, same would be recovered from his monthly salary bill. The impugned action on the part of the Respondents was set aside by the Division Bench referring to the pari-materia provisions as in the aforesaid CCS (CCA) Rules, in the Assam Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. The Petitioner was also intimated that on failure to deposit the amount, same would be recovered from his monthly salary bill. The impugned action on the part of the Respondents was set aside by the Division Bench referring to the pari-materia provisions as in the aforesaid CCS (CCA) Rules, in the Assam Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. Referring to the detail procedure laid down under the said Rule towards imposition of the penalty of recovery for causing pecuniary loss to the Government, the Division Bench held that even the imposition of minor penalty should be preceded by framing of charges and an enquiry as contemplated under the said Rules and that such a penalty can not be imposed without resorting to the procedure for imposing such penalty. 14. In the instant case also recoveries have been made on the basis of certain allegations against the Petitioner. As has been revealed in the aforesaid counter affidavit filed by the Respondents in C.M. Application No. 35/1999 in Civil Rule No. 27/1999, the course of action towards making the recovery was adopted against the Petitioner as according to the Respondents there was misconduct on his part. Such a stand on the part of the Respondents mandatorily required imposition of penalty of recovery only after initiation and completion of a departmental proceeding and upon finding the Petitioner guilty of the charge of causing pecuniary loss to the Respondents. Instead, the Respondents adopted a short cut method. In their wisdom they held the Petitioner guilty of causing pecuniary loss and ordered for recovery from his salary bills without putting the Petitioner to any kind of notice, not to speak of processing the matter through a regular departmental enquiry as contemplated under the Rules. 15. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal aspect of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was not justified in not entertaining the writ petition on merit seeing disputed questions of fact in it. Even otherwise also, while permitting the parties to resolve their dispute through the Civil Court, it was incumbent to quash the impugned action, which the Respondents resorted to even before resolving the dispute. The Petitioner approached the writ Court for violation of his service condition on the given fact situation involved in the case. Even otherwise also, while permitting the parties to resolve their dispute through the Civil Court, it was incumbent to quash the impugned action, which the Respondents resorted to even before resolving the dispute. The Petitioner approached the writ Court for violation of his service condition on the given fact situation involved in the case. These facts may involve disputed questions of fact, but if on such disputed questions on fact, the Petitioner is sought to be penalized in violation of the Rules holding the field, a writ Court cannot be a silent spectator. 16. As regards the TA bills, it was the stand of the Respondents in their aforesaid counter that the same were under process. Nothing could be highlighted during the course of hearing as to whether those bills have attained its finality and the payments have been made to the Petitioner/Appellant. We hereby provide that the Respondents shall process the same in accordance with rules and clear the same in favour of the Petitioner as per his entitlement. This process, if not already completed shall be finalized within a period of three months from today. 17. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, we allow the writ appeal setting aside the order dated 15.03.99 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 27/1999. It is hereby provided that the Respondents shall not make any recovery from the salary of the Petitioner in respect of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 42,718.50/-. The recovery, which has already been made from the salary bills of the Petitioner, shall be refunded to him immediately. However, the Respondents will be at liberty to take action against the Petitioner/Appellant in respect of the aforesaid amount in accordance with law, if so advised. 18. Writ appeal, stands allowed to the extent indicate above. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed