Judgment :- This writ petition has been filed against the order, dated 23. 95, passed by the second respondent recovering an amount of Rs.13,851/- for the alleged loss caused by the petitioner to the plants under his care as the Forest Ranger at Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District. Even though a show cause notice had been issued to him, he had not submitted an explanation. Instead, the petitioner had paid the amount of Rs.13,758/-pursuant to the impugned order. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner had paid the amount under threat and that the said amount has to be refunded to the petitioner. The petitioner had not caused any loss to the plants as alleged in the impugned order. 3. A reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating as follows: "A show cause notice under Rule 17(a) of Discipline and Appeal Rules, issued by the Divisional Forest Office, Social Forestry Division, Tiruchendur in C.No.D2/3206/94, dated 16. 94, to the applicant for certain inadmissible expenditure of Rs.13851/-incurred in plantation works. The applicant did not submit any explanation to the show cause notice. Instead he has voluntarily remitted the inadmissible expenditure of Rs.13,788/- by means of demand draft. After retiring from service on superannuation, on 30.6.1994, he has preferred an appeal against the show cause notice (not against any final orders passed on the show cause) to the Conservator of Forests, Social Forestry Office, Tirunelveli-11, the second respondent. In the appeal he has stated as follows: "The Divisional forest Officer has ordered me that all my pensionary benefits will be withheld, if I do not pay the excess before my retirement on 30.6.1994." No such order was issued by the 3rd respondent. If so, he would have quoted the details of such orders in his appeal. But he did not quote any such details in the appeal. Hence, it is evidence that the applicant has put forth unfounded allegations against his superior. If he was really threatened by the 3rd respondent, he ought to have brought this to the notice of the higher officials. But he did not do so. No recovery order was passed either by the 2nd respondent or by the 3rd respondent on the inadmissible expenditure incurred by the Applicant. Immediately on receipt of show cause notice, the applicant himself has remitted the inadmissible expenditure. But he did not do so. No recovery order was passed either by the 2nd respondent or by the 3rd respondent on the inadmissible expenditure incurred by the Applicant. Immediately on receipt of show cause notice, the applicant himself has remitted the inadmissible expenditure. Voluntarily without submitting any explanation to the show cause notice." 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had not refuted the averments made in the reply affidavit. 5. Hence, the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the second respondent, dated 23. 1995. In such circumstances, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.