Judgment J. S. Khehar, J. 1. A joint written statement on behalf of respondents no.1 and 5 has been filed in court today. The same is taken on record. A copy thereof has been furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. A separate written statement on behalf of respondent no.2 has been filed in court today. The same is taken on record. A copy thereof has been furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner. A joint written statement on behalf of respondents no.3 and 4 has also been filed in court today. The same is taken on record. A copy thereof has been furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated February 08, 2006 (Annexure P-3), vide which certain recoveries have been ordered from the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner, while impugning the aforesaid order, is that the impugned order has adverse civil consequences. Be that as it may, the rules of natural justice were not followed before passing the impugned order inasmuch as neither was the petitioner issued a show cause notice, informing him the basis on which the aforesaid recoveries were being made, nor was an opportunity of hearing granted to him. In addition to the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited our attention to paragraph 23 of the impugned order, which is extracted hereunder :- "as the whole matter of tampering with the service book and personal file is to be investigated by the enquiry Officer to be appointed with the approval of competent authority, therefore, action would be taken against the delinquent officials/officers in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their service after bringing the above facts to the notice of the HON BLE state Commission. " 4. On the basis of the factual position depicted in paragraph 23 of the impugned order, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that recovery was being made on a subject, on which an inquiry is yet to be conducted. Learned counsel for the respondents acknowledges the factual position, namely, that no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before the impugned order dated February 08, 2006 was passed and further that the investigation into the issue is yet to be conducted.4. Learned counsel for the respondents acknowledges the factual position, namely, that no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before the impugned order dated February 08, 2006 was passed and further that the investigation into the issue is yet to be conducted.4. On account of the factual position noticed above, we are satisfied that the impugned order dated February 08, 2006 has adverse civil consequences viz. the petitioner and that the same could have been passed only after following the rules of natural justice. Since the petitioner was neither issued show cause notice nor afforded any opportunity of hearing, we are satisfied that the impugned order dated February 08, 2006 deserves to be set aside. The same is, accordingly, set aside. Resultantly, the petitioner will be entitled to refund of any recovery, that has been made from him. 5. Liberty is, however, granted to the respondents to take action in the matter, if the respondents are so advised, in accordance with law. The writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly.