Judgment :- Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order passed by the 2nd Respondent in Na.Ka.No.22056/E4(2)/2000 dated 23.04.2002, confirmed by the 1st Respondent in G.O.(ID)No.17 Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi Department, dated 02.03.2004 and direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner in service with all benefits. 2. Brief facts, which lead to the filing of the Writ Petition are as follows:- (i) Petitioner, who was working as Junior Assistant, was deputed for conducting sale of Khadi Goods to Kilpauk Medical College during 1995-96. The stocks for the sale were taken from Mini Kraft, Annasalai. During 1997-98, the Audit Department, on a perusal of Demand Collection and Balance Register of Mini Kraft for the year 1995-96, found that no amount was collected for the sale conducted by Petitioner. On scrutiny of demand collection and balance register, the Audit Department noticed that during the year 199596, the collection of Rs.1,42,000/-for sale of silk sarees to the staff of Kilpauk Medical College on credit basis was accounted for. But, for another credit sale of Rs.3,06,388.05 made to the staff of Kilpauk Medical College, the Audit Department noticed that application form signed by the concerned Officer for credit sales were not available. The Audit Department noticed that previously also, the Petitioner has committed the same type of irregularity and sold goods worth Rs.3,23,435.10 to the staff of Kilpauk Medical College for the years 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91. The Audit Department in its Report had pointed out that the Petitioner committed misappropriation by preparing bogus credit bills and thereby, caused loss to the Board Funds to the tune of Rs.6,29,823/-(For 1988-89, 1990-91 Rs. 3,23,435/- and for 1995-96 Rs.3,06,388/- = Rs.6,29,823/-) and the Petitioner has not remitted to Board Funds the excess cash of Rs.18,495.85 collected during the temporary sales. (ii) A Charge Memo containing four charges was framed against him on 09.05.1997. The first charge levelled against the Petitioner is that after the sales during the period 1988-89 to 1989-90 and 1994-95 to 1995-96, the Petitioner without proper collection has misappropriated and caused loss to the Board Funds to the tune of Rs.16,23,000/-and the second charge is that he has not taken steps to collect the amount and account for the same. Third charge is that the Petitioner has not submitted the register of 1996 to the Superintendent/Officer for his examination. Third charge is that the Petitioner has not submitted the register of 1996 to the Superintendent/Officer for his examination. Fourth charge is that the Petitioner without prior permission had absented from duty from 10.02.1997 onwards. (iii) Petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges. A domestic enquiry was ordered and the then Assistant Manager Mr. T. Sreenivasan, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. After completing the Enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 21.09.2000 alleging that the Petitioner misappropriated Rs.6,48,319/- by way of raising bogus and fictitious bills. The Second Respondent passed an order on 05.04.1999 ordering recovery of Rs.6,48,319/- and started to recover a sum of Rs.3,000/-from his monthly salary. (iv) Challenging the recovery order, the Petitioner filed W.P.No.18413/2001 and the same was dismissed. Against that Order, the Petitioner preferred W.A.No.2311 of 2001. (v) The Second Respondent called for further explanation from the Petitioner on 112. 2000. The Petitioner submitted his reply on 05.02.2001, claiming that some amount has already been settled. The Second Respondent on verification of records found that the Petitioner had misappropriated totally a sum of Rs.10,47,477.45 by making double entries for the receipt of amount and also accounted in cases where no amount was collected. The First Respondent after considering the materials placed before it, has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner. Aggrieved, the Petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition. 3. Opposing the petition, the Respondents have filed counter stating that based on evidence, Enquiry Officer recorded finding that misappropriation was proved. It is further averred that the Petitioner committed irregularities in the sale of Khadi products. Case of Respondents is that once misappropriation is proved it is duty of the Officer to recover the amount from his monthly salary. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. S. Mani, contended that though Petitioner is alleged to have caused loss to the tune of Rs.16,23,000/-, Enquiry Officer has held that the Petitioner is responsible only for Rs.6,48,319/-, the Respondents are not right in ordering recovery. It was further submitted that the charges levelled against the Petitioner are not proved and while so order of recovery cannot be sustained. 5. Drawing courts attention to receipts the learned counsel for Respondent contended that without authorization issued by the concerned employer the Petitioner had written names of the purchasers in the bills and there by caused loss. It was further submitted that the charges levelled against the Petitioner are not proved and while so order of recovery cannot be sustained. 5. Drawing courts attention to receipts the learned counsel for Respondent contended that without authorization issued by the concerned employer the Petitioner had written names of the purchasers in the bills and there by caused loss. The learned counsel further submitted that before ever selling the Khadi clothes the Petitioner ought to have verified the credit form furnished by the employees and that there was clear violation of Khadi Board Rules. 6. During festival seasons, it is a practice of the Khadi Board to open many special counters to increase the sales. To manage the said special counters, available staff such as ministerial staff or other Khadi Kraft employees will be deputed. They will be in-charge of the various sales depots to sell the Khadi Kraft products both on cash as well as on credit basis. The Khadi and Village Industries goods will be handed over to the said staff and in turn after the sales period, the unsold goods will have to be returned to the main depot manager. Accordingly the Petitioner was also deputed for the Deepavali special sales. .7. As per the order of the 2nd Respondent, the Manager Khadi Kraft allotted one sale depot to the Petitioner and he was in-charge of sales depot during Deepavalil period during 1988-89 to 1989-90 and 1994-95 to 1995-96. .8. While effecting the sales it was the duty of the Petitioner to strictly adhere to the instructions before effecting credit sales. As per the Khadi Board Rules the Petitioner has to strictly adhere to the following instructions while effecting credit sales: ."Before accepting the credit form given by the employee, the Petitioner has to collect the authorized letter issued by the concerned employer/pay drawing officers undertaking letter to deduct the credit bill amount in their salary by 10 instalments. Further he was also authorized to sell the Khadi cloth on credit basis only equal to the value of his/her basic pay." 9. On verification of records, it was noticed that Petitioner had not followed any of the instructions of the Board and raised credit bills without actual sales, which found bogus and fictitious sales. Further he was also authorized to sell the Khadi cloth on credit basis only equal to the value of his/her basic pay." 9. On verification of records, it was noticed that Petitioner had not followed any of the instructions of the Board and raised credit bills without actual sales, which found bogus and fictitious sales. After the special sales period the Petitioner has to submit accounts and other documents such as cash sale amount, total credit sales amount, name of the employee who purchased goods on credit basis and the authorization letter given by the employer/pay drawing officers undertaking letter to deduct the amount from the concerned employee salary. Since various Khadi Kraft depots were under the control of the 2nd Respondent, he could not immediately notice the commission and omission committed by the Petitioner then and there. The Petitioners commission and omission were identified by the audit department during 1997. After the receipt of audit report, a detailed examination was made with the connected records and recovery orders was passed against the Petitioner for Rs.6,48,319/-. 10. Before accepting credit form furnished by the employees the Petitioner ought to have collected the authorization letter issued by the concerned employer/pay drawing officers undertaking that he accept to deduct the credit bill amount in 10 installments and pay to the Board. As per the Board rules, the Petitioner can sell the Khadi cloth on credit basis only equal to the value of his/her basic pay. On verification it was noticed that the Petitioner failed to adhere to credit sales norms. 11. On verification of credit sales list submitted by the Petitioner the following defects were found. .(i) No signature in the credit sales form. .(ii) The names found in the list are all bogus (iii) No office particulars mentioned in the credit sales form. (iv) No authorized letter issued by the concerned employer/pay drawing officer undertaking letter to deduct the credit bill amount in 10 installments. After receipt of audit report and after detailed examination it was held that the Petitioner is responsible for the entire loss. 12. The learned counsel for the Respondent Board Mr. S. Packiaraj, has drawn the attention of the Court to the number of receipts issued by the Petitioner for effecting credit sale. After receipt of audit report and after detailed examination it was held that the Petitioner is responsible for the entire loss. 12. The learned counsel for the Respondent Board Mr. S. Packiaraj, has drawn the attention of the Court to the number of receipts issued by the Petitioner for effecting credit sale. By perusal of those receipts it is seen that most of the receipts contain only the names of the purchaser and did not contain the names of employer/pay drawing officer. It is also stated that the Petitioner had not collected authorized letter issued by the concerned officer/pay drawing officers undertaking to deduct the credit bill amount in 10 installments and to pay to the Board. It is stated that neither the applications nor the authorization letter issued by the concerned Authorities were obtained before effecting credit sale. 13. The Khadi and Village Industries Board, is the agency for effecting sales products of weaver and other handicrafts works. The Petitioner being put in a responsible position of effecting sales for the special depot established through Deepavali season was ought to have adhered to the Rules. Being in a responsible position of effecting credit sales the Petitioner was required to take all possible steps to protect the interest of the Khadi Board and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity and devotion. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from functioning of every such employee of Khadi Board. When the Petitioner has caused loss, no defence is available to the Petitioner to contend the order of recovery as unjustifiable. The Petitioner having effected credit sales in violation of Khadi Board Rules is to make good the loss to the Khadi Board. This writ petition is devoid of merits. 14. In the result the writ petition is dismissed.