JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition seeks to challenge the order dated 4.11.2000 whereby a sum of Rs.44,569/- was held to be outstanding against the petitioner and on that basis a total of Rs.65,000/- was withheld from the retiral dues of the petitioner. The petitioner retired from the services of the respondents on 31.8.2000 and he has till date not been paid the amount of Rs.65,000/-. The petitioner therefore has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay the aforesaid amount together with interest @ 18% per annum. 2. Shri S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in none of the eight cases in which the authorities have not cleared the bills of the respondents, can the petitioner be held responsible because such credit was given by the Receptionists on their own level. Learned counsel relied on the Circular dated 18.5.1978 which is on record as Annexure-11 and argued that the Secretary of the Rajasthan State Hotels Corporation Ltd. in the aforesaid Circular directed that Receptionists / telephone operators will be responsible if any credit is given to the party and such credit could not be given without the express permission of the Manager / Accounts Officer and the bills issued to the parties should be duly countersigned either by the Manager or the Accounts Officer. In case of non payment and eventually non recovery, such Manager / Accounts Officer would be made responsible for making the losses good. The learned counsel submitted that no enquiry whatsoever was made against the petitioner so much so that a sum of Rs.33,855 was also held recoverable from the petitioner which was payable by the Government for the stay of the Chief Secretary and other Senior Officers of the Government who visited Udaipur. It was at the initiation of the petitioner that the aforesaid amount was sanctioned by the Government. Learned counsel submitted that no enquiry report was submitted, nor any notice was given to the petitioner for affecting the amount of recovery of Rs.65,000 aforesaid. The learned counsel relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in Gorakhpur University & Ors. v. Dr. It was at the initiation of the petitioner that the aforesaid amount was sanctioned by the Government. Learned counsel submitted that no enquiry report was submitted, nor any notice was given to the petitioner for affecting the amount of recovery of Rs.65,000 aforesaid. The learned counsel relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in Gorakhpur University & Ors. v. Dr. Shitla Prasad Nagendra & Ors.-(2001) SCC 591 and argued that no recovery can be made by the employer from the amount of gratuity.Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and argued that the petitioner was Senior Manager at that time and he was the only responsible person. It was argued that the petitioner has not produced the vouchers and respondents were not in a position to produce them as it was the responsibility of the petitioner. It was argued that the credit was given to the aforesaid party with the knowledge and permission of the petitioner. 3. On being pointedly asked, the learned counsel for the respondents could not assert that any enquiry was made or any opportunity of being heard was granted to the petitioner or that any such permission of the petitioner could be expressly or implicitly presumed. Nothing has been brought on record to show that there was any knowledge and permission of the petitioner. If there is any specific rule which governs the field and which requires the receptionist not to credit so long as the bills are counter signed by the Accounts Officer or the Manager, the liability for such an amount cannot be fastened on an employee who retired long back. The outstanding bills in the case of most of the parties are those who are Government servants, but some of them are private parties. In the absence of any such disciplinary enquiry to determine the liability of the petitioner, the respondents could not straight away direct the recovery of the aforesaid amount, from the petitioner, especially in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. 4. The writ petition is therefore allowed. In the absence of any such disciplinary enquiry to determine the liability of the petitioner, the respondents could not straight away direct the recovery of the aforesaid amount, from the petitioner, especially in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. 4. The writ petition is therefore allowed. The order of recovery is set aside and the respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.65,000/- or any other amount as has been actually withheld from his retiral dues, together with interest @ 6% per annum.Compliance of the judgement be made within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgement.Writ Petition allowed. *******