Judgment :- The petitioner had stated that he had joined in service, on 12. 1968, as a Typist in the Rural Development Department. He was promoted as an Assistant, on 19. 1981. In the month of May, 1985, he was posted as an Accountant. On 110. 1986, the petitioner had been transferred to the Social Welfare Department. 2. The petitioner had further stated that from May, 1985, to September, 1986, he was working as an Accountant in the Block Development Office, Tirutani. In the month of January, 1986, he had received a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards shifting of the godown. The godown had been shifted and the petitioner had shown proper accounts for the amount received in the voucher column in the Advance Register and it was also written in the connected files even before the Month of September, 1986. However, on 15. 1990, the petitioner was served with the recovery proceedings issued by the Development Officer, Tiruthani, dated 23. 1990, made in proceedings No.6296/88-V-1 for a sum of Rs.2,000/-. Even though the petitioner had submitted his explanation, on 6. 1990, no orders were passed for a period of 3 ½ years thereafter. Again, on 211. 1993, another recovery order was passed for the same amount of Rs.2,000/- by the Additional Block Development Officer, Tiruthani. On 30.12.1993, the petitioner had replied stating that since the connected files and vouchers were not traceable in the Block Development Office of the Block Development Officer, Tirutani, a fresh receipt for a sum of Rs.2,000/-, as expenses for the transportation done in the month of January, 1986, was being filed. 3. The petitioner had further stated that on 11. 1994, the Additional Block Development Officer, Tirutani, had issued a memo to the petitioner asking him as to why there was a delay of 7 years in submitting the receipts. On 22. 1994, the petitioner had sent a reply to the said memo. In the reply, it was stated that the petitioner had been transferred out of the Department and therefore, he could not verify as to whether the vouchers were adjusted to the accounts. Following the reply sent by the petitioner, no orders had been passed by the Additional Block Development Officer, Tirutani. On 13. 1994, the Director of Social Welfare Department had forwarded the reply of the petitioner, dated 30.12.1993 and 22. 1994, along with his remarks. Following the reply sent by the petitioner, no orders had been passed by the Additional Block Development Officer, Tirutani. On 13. 1994, the Director of Social Welfare Department had forwarded the reply of the petitioner, dated 30.12.1993 and 22. 1994, along with his remarks. No orders were passed for more than a year thereafter. 4. The petitioner had further stated that on 13. 1996, the Additional Block Development Officer, had passed an order of recovery for a sum of Rs.2,000/- and the said order was served on the petitioner, on 14. 1996. Even though the purpose for which the amount of Rs.2,000/- was given to the petitioner in the year, 1986, had been fulfilled, the recovery proceedings had been ordered after the lapse of 10 years due to no fault of the petitioner. The recovery order has been passed contrary to the provisions of law and in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and void, in view of the fact that the impugned order had been passed after more than 10 years, inspite of the petitioner submitting a number of explanations. The amount was given to the petitioner as advance in the month of January, 1986. He had left the Department, on 110. 1986. The recovery proceedings were ordered nearly 4 years thereafter, on 23. 1990. The order for recovery of the amount should have been issued only after conducting an oral enquiry affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to putforth his case. However, there was no charge formulated against the petitioner relating to the advance amount paid to him and the said order had been passed without giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of explaining the reason for the delay in submission of the relevant records relating to the matter. 6. It has also been submitted that the petitioner had produced the relevant receipts and the other necessary records even before the proceedings had been completed. In such circumstances, the respondents cannot blame the petitioner for the delay in passing the recovery order. 7. No reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 8. 6. It has also been submitted that the petitioner had produced the relevant receipts and the other necessary records even before the proceedings had been completed. In such circumstances, the respondents cannot blame the petitioner for the delay in passing the recovery order. 7. No reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had not produced any document to contradict the claims made by the petitioner even though the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had stated that the impugned order passed by the first respondent, on 13. 1996, is valid in law, as the delay caused in passing the said order is only due to the petitioner. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, it is seen from the records available before this Court that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he had misappropriated the amount given to him as advance for transportation while shifting the godown. The petitioner had submitted sufficient explanations for the delay in producing the receipts relating to the advance amount received by him. The relevant files and the receipts had been produced before the concerned authorities even before the proceedings against him were completed. There is no charge against the petitioner stating that the receipts produced by him are not relating to the transport charges incurred during the shifting of the godown. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner the interim order of stay granted by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal against the impugned proceedings, on 24. 1996, had continued till date. Further, the petitioner had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. 10. It is also clear that there has been an extraordinary delay in passing the impugned order, inspite of the explanations submitted by the petitioner stating the reasons for the belated submissions of the necessary records. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 13. 1996, made in Na.Ka.1261/92.P3, is quashed and the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.