JUDGMENT I. M. QUDDUSI, J. — By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of the Divisional Manager, Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited, Nowrangpur (C) Division passed on 6.1.1995, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, directing recovery of Rs. 36,541.24 and Rs. 6863/-from the dues of the petitioner and for a direction to the opposite parties to pay the dues of the petitioner including gratuity of Rs. 37,506.70 and duty pay and other dues within a specified period. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner who belongs to Tribal community of Koraput district joined as a mate in the Corporation on 6.4.1964. Thereafter he was transferred to so many places but his last place of posting was Nowrangpur Division wherefrom he retired with effect from 31.12.1993 while working as Sectional Supervisor. But his dues as claimed by him were not paid to him. He moved representation but in vain. 3. In the counter affidavit, it has been mentioned that while the petitioner was in-charge of Kotpad Fire Wood Depot, the depot was verified by the Section Officer Accounts on 27.7.1989 and 8.8.1989 and it was found that the petitioner had not depos¬ited revenue of Rs. 9562.00 with the Corporation and there was shortage of 846.22 quintals of fire wood worth Rs. 35,541.24. It has also been mentioned therein that the petitioner agreed to deposit the unremitted amount and gave written statement requesting for instalment facility. In the explanation submitted by the petitioner (Annexure-D) for the shortage of firewood, the petitioner alleged that there was no boundary wall and even office room in the depot as a result of which the fire wood was always kept in the open, that there was no watchman in the depot to guard the fire wood which were kept in the open, that he was alone discharging his own duty as well as the duty of the watchman and that having regard to his age, it was not possible for him to work for 24 hours. However, recovery order was passed on 5.11.1993 but the petitioner has not deposited the amount pursu¬ant to the recovery order. 4. However, recovery order was passed on 5.11.1993 but the petitioner has not deposited the amount pursu¬ant to the recovery order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was not permissible for the Corporation to deduct the amount towards shortage of firewood from the post-retirement benefits of the petitioner without conducting enquiry as to whether the petitioner is responsible for the shortage. He further submitted that no disciplinary proceeding was conducted against the peti¬tioner for the above purpose. Learned counsel for the Corporation on the other hand submitted that the authority has the right to recover the dues from the gratuity without consent of the employee. 5. On our direction, the relevant records were produced by the learned counsel for the opposite parties. We have perused the same. It appears that on 6.4.1990, the explanation of the peti¬tioner dated 29.3.1990 was considered and order was passed to draw up proceedings for shortage of firewood and misappropriation of Rs. 9562.98. On 25.7.1990, the draft proceedings was put up before the Divisional Manager for signature and the Divisional Manager passed the following order : “Hansu Dayalu has given some explanation. Seen to it. Arrange all evidence with concerned units before drawing up proceedings. Verify, if in the meantime, he has deposited.” Again on 30.1.1991 the draft charges were put up for approval of the Divisional Manager. But no order appears to have been passed thereon. On 13.2.1991, the following note was put up : “Sri Hansu Dayalu, Mate, has submitted his explanation narrating the circumstances of theft and shortage. Sri Dayalu has handled 1251 quintals f/w during period of shortage. There are some possibility of theft and shortage. Usually shortage has been noticed in other places due to long storage. On 13.2.1991, the following note was put up : “Sri Hansu Dayalu, Mate, has submitted his explanation narrating the circumstances of theft and shortage. Sri Dayalu has handled 1251 quintals f/w during period of shortage. There are some possibility of theft and shortage. Usually shortage has been noticed in other places due to long storage. Hence, Sri Dayalu may be allowed some % of shortage.” Whereupon the following order was passed on 14.2.1991 by the Divisional Manager : “Allow shortage to firewood quantity.” It appears that though the draft charge was placed time and again before the Divisional Manager for approval and signature, the same was not done and suddenly on 11.11.1993, just a little about more than one month before the retirement of the petitioner, the Divisional Manager on the explanation submitted by the petitioner passed the following order: “No necessity for charge sheet since we have to impose recovery of loss caused to O.F.D.C. by Shri Hans Dahalu who will retire on 31.12.1993, Issue order for recovering Rs. 36,541.24 from dues payable to Shri Hans Dayalu, S.S., since his explana¬tion is not found satisfactory. Sd. G.S.Mishra, 11.11.93, D.M.Nowrangpur,” From the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it appears that the opposite parties had not conducted any preliminary enquiry nor initiated any departmental proceedings against the petitioner to establish misappropriation or shortage as after submission of explanation, it was necessary for the department to conduct an enquiry. Prima facie it was the duty of the opposite parties to depute a watchman when firewood was kept in the open. 6. Now the petitioner is a retired employee since more than 10 years and hence no enquiry can be conducted at present. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the opposite parties to pay all the dues of the petitioner including his gratuity as expeditiously as possible but not later than a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of the order. However, they would be entitled to deduct the amount to be recovered from the petitioner (towards non-deposit or collected amount towards revenue) except the alleged amount for shortage of firewood. There would be no order as to costs. N. PRUSTY, J. I agree. Ordered accordingly.