Judgment :- It is stated that the petitioner was working as Road Inspector in the office of the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Highways and Rural Works), Madurai West, Madurai. The petitioner was on deputation to the Madurai East Panchayat Union from 17. 1989. On 12. 1991, he had applied for leave on medical grounds. When he was on leave, the Block Development Officer, Madurai East Panchayat Union, had requested the Divisional Engineer, Highways and Rural Works, Madurai, to depute a substitute for being posted in the place of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has further stated that he had submitted a representation to the said Divisional Engineer requesting him to post the petitioner in Madurai West Sub Division. Accordingly, the petitioner was posted in Madurai North Section and he had joined duty on 2. 1992. The Commissioner, Madurai East Panchayat Union, had issued an order of suspension in Roc.No.A1/9318/1991, dated 2. 1992, placing the petitioner under suspension. The said order had been passed after the petitioner had joined duty in his parent Department. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Madurai East Panchayat Union had issued an order in Na.Ka.A1/2961/92, dated 5. 1992, directing the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.1,79,868/-, which was alleged to have been due from the petitioner in respect of the works done under J.V.V.T. Scheme. A charge memo was issued to the petitioner, on 28. 1992, by the Panchayat Union Commissioner in Na.Ka.No.A1/9318/91, dated 28. 1992. The charges were framed under Rule 17(b) of The Tamil Nadu Civil Services (CC&A) Rules. The allegations against the petitioner were that he did not remit a sum of Rs.79,045/- being the balance with him out of the advance money received for the works and that he did not surrender the building materials worth Rs.1,00,823/-. It was also alleged that the petitioner did not complete the work in time. 3. The petitioner has also stated that the Panchayat Union Commissioner had also lodged a complaint with the Deputy Commissioner of Police Crime and Traffic, Madurai City, against the petitioner. However, no action was taken and no case was registered against the petitioner since proper records were not furnished. The Divisional Development Officer, Madurai, had issued a memo in Roc.No.1290/92/A1, dated 30.12.1992, directing the Panchayat Union Commissioner, Madurai East, to revoke the order of suspension. Accordingly, the Panchayat Union Commissioner had issued an order in Na.Ka.A1/9318/91, dated 1. However, no action was taken and no case was registered against the petitioner since proper records were not furnished. The Divisional Development Officer, Madurai, had issued a memo in Roc.No.1290/92/A1, dated 30.12.1992, directing the Panchayat Union Commissioner, Madurai East, to revoke the order of suspension. Accordingly, the Panchayat Union Commissioner had issued an order in Na.Ka.A1/9318/91, dated 1. 1993, revoking the order of suspension passed against the petitioner and directing the petitioner to approach the Divisional Engineer Highways and Rural Works, Madurai, for getting posting orders. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted as Road Inspector in the office of the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways and Rural Works, Madurai West, in and by the proceedings of the Divisional Engineer (Highways and Rural Works),Madurai, in Se.Mu.Ka.15170/91/Aa4, dated 1. 1993. The petitioner had joined duty and he has been working in the said office since then. On 24. 1993, the Commissioner Madurai East Panchayat Union had issued an order in Na.Ka.A1/9318/91, dated 24. 1993, directing the recovery of a sum of Rs.2,41,766/- from the petitioners pay. With regard to the disciplinary proceedings no enquiry has been conducted and no final orders had been passed. Further, the criminal proceedings have not been proceeded with. Even before the completion of the disciplinary proceedings, the first respondent had issued the impugned order directing recovery of a sum of Rs.2,41,766/-. The impugned order had been issued without any opportunity being given to the petitioner and it is, therefore, void as it is in violation of the principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred an original application in O.A.No.1445 of 1994, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.15138 of 2006. 4. No reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the alleged guilt of the petitioner has not been proved till date, either by way of disciplinary proceedings or in a criminal case. The impugned order of the first respondent, dated 24. 1993, had been issued even before the completion of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. No opportunity was given to the petitioner to present his case. 6. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in spite of the directions issued by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, by its order, dated 7. 1993, had been issued even before the completion of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. No opportunity was given to the petitioner to present his case. 6. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in spite of the directions issued by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, by its order, dated 7. 1996, made in O.A.No.3156 of 1996, directing the respondents to complete the enquiry and to pass final orders, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the said order, the respondents had not complied with the directions even after a lapse of more than 10 years. No final orders had been passed after the completion of the disciplinary proceedings even though the alleged incident had taken place in the year 1991. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in W.P (MD) No.1726 of 2005, to quash the charge memo issued in Na.Ka.No.A1/9318/91, dated 28. 1992. Considering the long delay in completing the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and since no final orders had been passed as a result of the disciplinary proceedings, this Court had passed an order, on 28. 2007, quashing the charge memo, dated 28. 1992, issued by the Commissioner, Madurai East panchayat Union, Madurai. 7. It has also been pointed out that in view of the interim order granted by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal directing the second respondent to allow the petitioner to carry home the portions of the salary for which the petitioner was eligible under the Rules, the balance amount was being deducted in accordance with the said interim order of the Tribunal. 8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents had denied the claims made on behalf of the petitioner. However, the Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has not been in a position to show that there were sufficient grounds for ordering the recovery of the amounts from the petitioner, as specified in the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 24. 1993. The fact that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner had not been completed, even though certain directions had been issued by an order of the Tribunal, dated 7. 1996, made in O.A.No.3156 of 1996, is not in dispute. 9. It has also been admitted that this Court, by an order, dated 28. 1993. The fact that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner had not been completed, even though certain directions had been issued by an order of the Tribunal, dated 7. 1996, made in O.A.No.3156 of 1996, is not in dispute. 9. It has also been admitted that this Court, by an order, dated 28. 2007, made in W.P. (MD) No.1726 of 2005, had quashed the charge memo, dated 28. 1992, issued by the Commissioner, Madurai, based on which the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner. Nothing has been shown by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents regarding the pendency of criminal proceedings against the petitioner. No records have been placed before this Court by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, either to show that there were certain criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner or to establish that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner had been completed. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents have not shown sufficient cause or reason to sustain the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 24. 1993, which has been issued without sufficient opportunity having been provided to the petitioner to put forth his case. Further, from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the authorities responsible to fix the liability, by completing the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and to fix the liability on the persons responsible for the loss of the amounts mentioned in the impugned order, have not acted promptly in doing so. Thus, the authorities concerned have not discharged their duties vested in them to identify the persons responsible for the loss caused to the public exchequer. 10. Considering the averments made on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, the only conclusion that could be reached by this Court is that the impugned order of the first respondent, in Na.Ka.A1/9318/91, dated 24. 1993, is liable to be quashed. Hence, it is quashed. Consequently, it is open to the petitioner to request the authorities concerned for the refund of the amounts already recovered from him. 1993, is liable to be quashed. Hence, it is quashed. Consequently, it is open to the petitioner to request the authorities concerned for the refund of the amounts already recovered from him. However, in view of the fact that a large sum of money is involved, it is made clear that it would be open to the authorities to take appropriate steps against the persons concerned to offset the loss caused to the public exchequer, in accordance with the procedures that are permissible under law. With the above observations, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.