ORDER Petitioner questioning the correctness of the Official Memorandum dated 22nd July, 2005 vide Annexure-G issued by second respondent has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought for a mandamus, directing the respondents to forbear from recovery of any amount in pursuance to Annexure-G and direct the respondents to pay all the pensionary and other benefits due to the petitioner on his retirement including the interest at the rate of 12% on the belated payment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, petitioner who was working as 'Store Keeper' at Yelahanka (Administration and HRD) was transferred and posted to Magadi MUSS and was handed over the charge of store articles during May 2000. A notice came to be issued to petitioner on 4th September, 2002, calling upon the petitioner to finalise the store articles. The petitioner retired from service as 'Junior Engineer' (Electrical) (Section Officer) after attaining the age of superannuation on 31st May, 2003. Be that as it may. 3. The respondents have issued the notice dated 15th April, 2004 directing him to regularise the shortages of poles and empty barrels even though the petitioner had already handed over the said items and obtained necessary signatures in concerned register. In response to the said notice, petitioner submitted a detailed reply categorically mentioning that, there was no shortage of store articles, whatsoever and that he has completely handed over the charge of the said items. When things stood thus, the petitioner's pensionary benefits was not settled. On account of non-settlement of his pensionary benefits, petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by way of filing a writ petition before this Court in Writ Petition No. 50090 of 2004 and the said writ petition had come up for consideration before this Court on 8th June, 2005. The writ petition filed by petitioner was disposed of with a direction to respondents to consider the representation vide Annexure-A therein, submitted by the petitioner on its merits and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Immediately after disposal of the said writ petition, petitioner has submitted the representation dated 26th June, 2005 vide Annexure-F, requesting the authorities to settle the retirement benefits. Immediately after disposal of the said writ petition, petitioner has submitted the representation dated 26th June, 2005 vide Annexure-F, requesting the authorities to settle the retirement benefits. The respondents, instead of considering his request for settling the pensionary benefits, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, has proceeded to issue the impugned official memorandum dated 22nd July, 2005 vide Annexure-G pointing out that, petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 4,35,588/- on the ground that, the petitioner has agreed to regularise the shortage of the PCC poles and empty barrels. Assailing the correctness of the said official memorandum dated 22nd July, 2005 vide Annexure-G, issued by second respondent, petitioner herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition. 4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for respondents. 5. The bone of contention of the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner is that, the impugned official memorandum dated 22nd July, 2005 issued by second respondent is liable to be set aside at the threshold itself, for the reason that, the said Authority, without conducting enquiry as envisaged under Rule 133 of the Accounts Manual, Volume 2 of the Karnataka Electricity Board Regulations and the relevant regulation of the Accounts Manual of the Karnataka Electricity Board, has proceeded to issue the impugned official memorandum. In support of the said contention, he placed reliance on Regulation 171 of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees' Service Regulations, 1966 and submitted that, without following these two mandatory requirements as envisaged under the said Regulations of the respondents-company, the second respondent has proceeded to issue the impugned official memorandum. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for respondents inter alia, contended and substantiated that, the impugned official memorandum dated 22nd July, 2005 vide Annexure-G, claiming a sum of Rs. 4,35,588/from the petitioner is just and proper. To substantiate her submission, she placed reliance on Annexure-R6, page 16 - which is the proceedings of the meeting held on 26th October, 2004 and submitted that, the petitioner has appeared and participated in the proceedings of the meeting held on 26th October, 2004 regarding shortage of materials handed over by petitioner, who was then the 'store keeper' at Yelahanka Office. Further, she submitted that, in the said proceedings of the meeting at Annexure-R6 it has been specifically mentioned at internal page 2 that, the petitioner, Retired Section Officer (the then store-keeper) and Sri Shankar Rao, Store Keeper, Yelahanka, ABRDN, both have agreed to regularise the shortage of 209 Nos. of PCC poles 7.5 mtrs. and 202 empty barrels. Therefore, she submitted that, in view of clear admission by petitioner himself along with one of his colleague, the impugned official memorandum issued by second respondent is just and proper and there is no error or illegality as such committed by respondents nor petitioner has made out any good grounds for interference in the same. 7. After careful evaluation of the impugned official memorandum dated 22nd July, 2005 vide Annexure-G, it is manifest on the face of the statements made in the official memorandum that, the concerned authority has proceeded to issue the same unilaterally without conducting proper enquiry and without affording an opportunity to the petitioner, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner. In support of his case, as referred above, learned Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on the relevant Regulations of the respondents-company and drew my attention specifically to Regulation 171 of the Karnataka Electricity Employees Service Regulation and Rule 133 of the Accounts Manual Volume 2 of the Karnataka Electricity Board Regulations. As per the said rule and regulation, the Competent Authority is supposed to conduct a departmental enquiry before issuing the impugned official memorandum. But in the instant case, it can be seen that, no enquiry as such has been conducted and straightaway, the Authority has proceeded to issue the impugned official memorandum. Therefore, in view of not conducting the enquiry in strict compliance of the relevant Regulations and the Accounts manual and for not affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also in view of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice, the impugned official memorandum cannot be sustained and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 8. Therefore, in view of not conducting the enquiry in strict compliance of the relevant Regulations and the Accounts manual and for not affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also in view of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice, the impugned official memorandum cannot be sustained and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for respondents submitted that, the submission of the learned Counsel for petitioner is baseless for the reason that, the petitioner himself has appeared in the proceedings of the meeting held on 26th October, 2004 regarding shortage of materials and the petitioner and another have together admitted in unequivocal terms that, both of them would regularise the shortage of 209 Nos. of PCC poles of 7.5 mtrs. and 202 Nos. of empty barrels. However, on a perusal of the impugned official memorandum with relevance to the proceedings of the meeting held on 26th October, 2004 produced by learned Counsel appearing for respondents, it can be seen that, there is no consonance between the two and they do not tally with each other. The details mentioned in the impugned official memorandum and the admission made by petitioner and another official in the proceedings of the meeting held on 26th October, 2004 do not tally with each other and are totally different except 202 Nos. of empty barrels. Further, it can be seen from the proceedings of the meeting that, petitioner and another have admitted that, they would also regularise 209 Nos. of PCC poles of 7.5 mtrs. But, in the impugned official memorandum issued to the petitioner, the same is not forth coming and the same is mentioned Sl. No. 2 - PCC Pole - 7.5 mtrs. 370 Nos. There is considerable variation between the two documents. Therefore, from all these materials, it goes to prove without any reasonable doubt that, the impugned official memorandum issued by the Authority is highly unsustainable and the same is issued without proper application of mind. It also appears that, the official memorandum has been issued in a very casual manner without hearing the petitioner, without conducting the enquiry in strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Regulations of the respondents-company. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the impugned official memorandum can be sustained in the lights of the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the impugned official memorandum can be sustained in the lights of the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the writ petition filed by petitioner is disposed of with the following directions.- (i) The writ petition filed by petitioner is partly allowed; (ii) The impugned official memorandum dated 22nd July, 2005 vide Annexure-G issued by second respondent is hereby set aside and the matter stands remitted back to the second respondent-the Executive Engineer (Electrical), Rural North Division, Yelahanka Division, Bangalore, to reconsider the matter afresh and to take appropriate decision in accordance with law and in strict compliance of the relevant Regulation of the respondents-Company, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to dispose of the same, as expeditiously, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.