Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties concerned. 2. The facts, in a nutshell, are as follows: It has been stated that the first respondent is a federation created by the Government of Tamil Nadu with the object of distributing oil seeds and agricultural inputs to the farmers and to introduce new oil seeds and farming techniques, amongst them. The first respondent is an instrumentality of the State and, as such, it is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The oil seeds growers are the members in the various co-operative oil seeds societies in the State of Tamil Nadu. The society purchased the seeds at a particular rate fixed by the Area Manager of the first respondent. The staff at the area office of the first respondent will check the quality of the seeds. If the quality of the seeds is approved, the seeds would be purchased at the area office. The co-operative oil seeds societies are members of the first respondent federation. The seeds are then sold to the co-operative societies who place orders for the supply of seeds. The role of the extension assistant is to supervise the societies and to see whether they maintain the records pertaining to the purchase and sale of seeds, including the accounts and to remind the officers of the society about the dues payable to the federation. If the societies fail to clear the dues, the Area Manager would initiate the appropriate proceedings for recovery of the dues from the members of the societies. 3. The petitioner has further stated that he had joined the service of the first respondent, in the year 1985, as an Extension Assistant and he was placed under the second respondent. The petitioner had worked at various places without any blemish. While so, on 24. 2000, the petitioner had received a communication from the second respondent, dated 4. 2000, stating that, during the accounting year 1988-89, the Extension Assistants of Arakonam, Minnal, Nemili, and Thakkolam had not paid the entire sale proceeds pertaining to Manila variety of groundnuts and that the shortfall was to the tune of Rs.36,956/- and that it was equally payable by all the five persons, who had worked at the said places. 2000, stating that, during the accounting year 1988-89, the Extension Assistants of Arakonam, Minnal, Nemili, and Thakkolam had not paid the entire sale proceeds pertaining to Manila variety of groundnuts and that the shortfall was to the tune of Rs.36,956/- and that it was equally payable by all the five persons, who had worked at the said places. The petitioner was one of the five persons and he was liable to pay a sum of Rs.13,914.75/-, which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner in equal installments. On receipt of the said communication, the petitioner had sent his objections, dated 25. 2000 and 11. 2000, to the first respondent, objecting to the said recovery stating the various reasons as to why the petitioner was not liable to pay the said amount. However, the third respondent, by his proceedings, dated 2. 2001, had informed the petitioner that a sum of Rs.13,914.75/- would be recovered from the petitioner in 14 installments beginning from the month of February, 2001. The petitioner had come to learn that the proceedings for recovery of the money had been passed based on the communication, dated 4. 2000, issued by the second respondent. 4. It has been further stated that none of the respondents had issued any notice to the petitioner prior to the communication, dated 4. 2000 or thereafter. No opportunity was provided to the petitioner to put forth his case. Therefore, the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner cannot be held liable to pay the amount mentioned in the impugned proceedings and no recovery can be made against the petitioner, since he was not given any notice prior to the passing of the impugned proceedings. No enquiry had been conducted before the impugned proceedings had been issued. The petitioner cannot be burdened with the liability before giving him a reasonable opportunity to putforth his case. Since the impugned proceedings are in violation of the principles of natural justice, they are liable to be set aside. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has not refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 7. Since the impugned proceedings are in violation of the principles of natural justice, they are liable to be set aside. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has not refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 4. 2000, and the consequential proceedings of the third respondent, dated 2. 2001, are set aside. However, it is open to the respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner, with regard to the issues arising in the impugned proceedings, by giving him sufficient opportunity to defend himself, in accordance with law. 8. With the observations, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.