Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the second Respondent vide the communication TIIC/HO/F&R/EPF/2000-2001 dated 13.10.2000 based on the Resolution of 3rd Respondent dated 11.10.2000 and quash the same and to direct the Respondents to disburse the E.P.F. Contribution and employment benefits.) The Petitioner seeks issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the second Respondent vide communication TIIC/HO/ F&R/EPF/2000-2001 dated 13.10.2000 based on the Resolution of 3rd Respondent dated 11.10.2000 and quash the same and to direct the Respondents to disburse the E.P.F. Contribution and employment benefits. 2. Facts which led to the Writ Petition are as follows – The deceased first Petitioner [for short, the Petitioner] was working as Branch Manager at Chennai North Branch of the Respondent Corporation during the period from 05.07.1995 to 29.08.1997. On verification of loan files, it was found that the Petitioner had committed grave irregularities in respect of at least 14 loan files. Hence in some cases, charges were framed against the Petitioner and the Petitioner was placed under suspension from 28.10.1998, pending disciplinary proceedings. The Petitioner was due to retire on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.03.1999. But the Respondent Corporation decided to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings and hence the Petitioner was not permitted to retire and suspension was continued. After the completion of the disciplinary proceedings, the Petitioner was dismissed on 29.08.2000. 3. Case of the Petitioner is that on his dismissal from service, he has sent a letter dated 6/7.9.2000, requesting the Corporation to release the Provident Fund amount due and payable to him. The Respondent Corporation has sent a cheque for Rs.98,405/-. Rs.98,405/- was calculated as under: Amount in Rs. EPF [own] contribution at credit as on 29.08.2000 - 3,63,100 CPF withdrawn by Petitioner - 98,000 Interest for the above sum - 1,51,556 ---------- 2,49,556 ---------- (-) 1,13,544 ---------- Dues payable by the Petitioner to the Corporation - 15,139 ---------- (-) 98,405 ---------- 4. Vehemently assailing the mode of calculation of interest, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the amount withdrawn out of Corporation Provident Fund [CPF] does not attract any interest as per the Rules of the Corporation and there is no specific Rule to collect interest for Provident Fund withdrawal from Own subscription or Corporation's contribution. Vehemently assailing the mode of calculation of interest, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the amount withdrawn out of Corporation Provident Fund [CPF] does not attract any interest as per the Rules of the Corporation and there is no specific Rule to collect interest for Provident Fund withdrawal from Own subscription or Corporation's contribution. It was further submitted that only for victimizing the Petitioner, huge interest has been levied upon the amount withdrawn from Corporation Provident Fund. 5. The learned Counsel for the Respondent Corporation has submitted that the Petitioner was governed by TIIC Employees Provident Fund Rules and the levy of interest is in compliance of Rule 30 of the EPF Rules. 6. Having heard the Counsel for the parties and in consideration of the available materials, the point arising for consideration is: whether the Respondent Corporation was justified in charging interest for the withdrawal from Corporation Provident Fund [Corporation Provident Fund] and whether the deduction of Rs.1,51,556 towards the interest is sustainable? 7. The employees Provident Fund consists of contributions from the first Respondent Corporation which is known as Corporation Provident Fund [CPF] and the employee's contribution is known as "own contribution". Both Corporation Provident Fund as well as own contribution of the employees shall vest with the third Respondent. 8. Rule 30 of Provident Fund Rules relates to the relevance to the issue in consideration. Rule 30 reads thus: "Clause 30 – In case a contributor is dismissed from the service of the Corporation, he shall retain his right to his own contributions upto the date of such dismissal, together with interest calculated thereon upto the end of the year immediately preceding his dismissal but shall forfeit all other benefits from the Fund. The amount forfeited in respect of contributions made by the Corporation on account of a member dismissed from service shall lapse to the fund." 9. The Petitioner had availed withdrawal facility from out of Corporation Provident Fund fund totalling Rs.98,000/- on two different dates – Rs.39,000/- on 08.07.1991 and Rs.59,000 on 16.12.1992. As on the date of dismissal of the Petitioner on 29.08.2000, amount due and payable by the Petitioner towards withdrawal from Corporation Provident Fund is Rs.98,000/- for which, interest is calculated at Rs.1,51,556 and the same is deducted from the Employee's Contribution. 10. Either Rule 30 or other Rules of EPF do not contemplate the levy of interest. As on the date of dismissal of the Petitioner on 29.08.2000, amount due and payable by the Petitioner towards withdrawal from Corporation Provident Fund is Rs.98,000/- for which, interest is calculated at Rs.1,51,556 and the same is deducted from the Employee's Contribution. 10. Either Rule 30 or other Rules of EPF do not contemplate the levy of interest. Regarding payment of Provident Fund to the Writ Petitioner, the office has put up note for payment of Provident Fund contributed by the Petitioner after adjusting the sum of Rs.98,000/- withdrawn from the Employee's Contribution. The notes does not state anything about the charging of interest. 11. Rule 30 only stipulates that the dismissed employee would not be entitled to Employee's Contribution of the P.F. However dismissed employee retains the right to receive back his own contribution, after deduction of appropriate recoveries. In the absence of any specific Rules, the Corporation was not justified in charging interest for the withdrawn of Rs.98,000/- from the Corporation Provident Fund. 12. At the time when the matter was earlier heard, Counter Affidavit was not filed. Drawing the attention of the Court to certain discrepancies in the impugned letter dated 13.10.2000 and the alleged resolution passed on 11.10.2000, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Resolution dated 11.10.2000 has been prepared by the Corporation at a later point of time to cause hardship to the Petitioner. The letter dated 13.10.2000, administration/Trustee resolution on 11.10.2000 has been stated as the reference. But in the resolution the date is shown as 09.10.2000. Much arguments was advanced on the said discrepancy and the learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that the resolution has been subsequently created, after the matter was heard in 2003. This Court does not propose to go into the merits of this contention, suffice it to point out that the charging of interest for the withdrawal of Corporation Provident Fund is not supported by any Rules. Charging of interest on the withdrawal from Corporation Provident Fund is unreasonable and the same cannot be sustained. 13. Therefore, the order of the second Respondent made in TIIC/HO/F&R/EPF/2000-2001 dated 13.10.2000 based on the Resolution of 3rd Respondent dated 11.10.2000 is quashed the Respondents are directed to pay the balance Provident Fund sum of Rs.1,51,556/- to the Petitioner, which has been deducted as interest within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. Therefore, the order of the second Respondent made in TIIC/HO/F&R/EPF/2000-2001 dated 13.10.2000 based on the Resolution of 3rd Respondent dated 11.10.2000 is quashed the Respondents are directed to pay the balance Provident Fund sum of Rs.1,51,556/- to the Petitioner, which has been deducted as interest within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This Writ Petition is ordered accordingly.