JUDGMENT U.B. Saha, J. 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenge has been made by the petitioner to the order dated 25.9.1999 (Annexure-C to the writ petition), issued by the Managing Director, Tripura Road Transport Corporation, Agartala, respondent No. 2 herein directing recovery of an amount of Rs.4,132.19 by instalments @ Rs.500/- per month from the salary of the petitioner for the month of September 1999 payable in October 1999 onwards towards pecuniary loss sustained by the respondent Corporation due to short delivery of 223 kg of Mild Still Flat (M.S. Flat) by the petitioner as the said action was taken without following the procedure prescribed under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (herein after referred to as "the Rules, 1965"). 2. Heard Mr. R Roy Barman, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R Dutta, learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation. 3. The brief facts noticed from the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a Driver by the respondent Corporation in the year 1978 and at the relevant time he was serving as a Heavy Vehicle Driver being posted at Goods Traffic Section, Kunjaban, Agartala and while he was discharging his duties as such he was asked to carry 10 mt, M.S. Flat (50 × 5mm size) from the R.D. Godown, R.K. Nagar, West Tripura to Udaipur R.D. Godown by the vehicle No. TR-01 -1865 on 12.8.1998 and he received the goods at Goods Traffic Section, Kunjaban, Agartala at about 1630 hrs. on that day and thereafter, he started for Udaipur on the following day at about 8 a.m. and reached there at about 11 a.m. On that day, i.e. on 13.8.1998 he stationed the aforesaid vehicle along with the loaded goods at the RD Godown Complex, Udaipur under the custody of the RD Department as per their direction and unloading of the goods was done on 14.8.1998 at about 1700 hrs. which was completed at 2200 hrs. After unloading the ' petitioner returned to his station at Agartala on 15.8.1998 as his vehicle was released by the R. D. store authority, Udaipur on that day. which was completed at 2200 hrs. After unloading the ' petitioner returned to his station at Agartala on 15.8.1998 as his vehicle was released by the R. D. store authority, Udaipur on that day. On 28.11.1998 the petitioner received a Memo, from the Traffic Manager (G), Agartala, respondent No. 5 herein whereby and whereunder the petitioner was asked to explain as to why the cost of short delivered goods amount to Rs.4132.19 will not be recovered from his salary/dues to compensate the loss, which has been advised for deduction from TRTC carriage bill and as to why disciplinary action will not be taken against him. He was further asked to furnish his reply within three days on receipt of the aforesaid memo. In response thereto, the petitioner had shown his cause by way of reply dated 4.12.1998 narrating the story as stated supra and particularly he narrated therein that at the time of unloading the Ms Flat from his vehicle at R.D. Godown, Udaipur on 12.8.1998 there was insufficient light. Only with the help of candle the unloading was done. He also stated that while the loading was done, the R.D. Store authority at R. K. Nagar, West Tripura used the weighing machine for the purpose of weighing the materials, but at the time of unloading those materials, the R.D. Store authority at Udaipur used the ordinary scale (Cata) and not only that in place of prescribed weight measures, they used bricks and for that reason the shortage might have occurred. He also appeared to the authority to consider his case after examining the aforesaid facts and circumstances and exempt him from the liability of such shortage. But the authority without considering his prayer issued the impugned order dated 25.9.1999. Hence, the instant writ petition. 4. The respondent Corporation and its officials by way of filing a joint affidavit-in-reply denied the allegations of the petitioners stating, inter alia, that the petitioner could not inform anything about the shortage of such M.S. Flat to the authority of the Corporation till filing of the affidavit-in-reply. Hence, the instant writ petition. 4. The respondent Corporation and its officials by way of filing a joint affidavit-in-reply denied the allegations of the petitioners stating, inter alia, that the petitioner could not inform anything about the shortage of such M.S. Flat to the authority of the Corporation till filing of the affidavit-in-reply. In the said affidavit-in-reply, it is also contended that the Executive Engineer, R. D. Stores Division, Agartala vide his letter dated 2.9.1998 informed that the petitioner could not deliver actual received quantity and consequent upon which he (Executive Engineer) had no other alternative but to realize the cost of 223 kg M.S. Flat (50 x 5 mm size) amounting to Rs.4,132.19 from the claim of TRTC and that being the position, the authority of the respondent Corporation thought it fit not to frame any charge against the petitioner but to ask the petitioner to show cause as to why the aforesaid amount towards short delivery of materials should not be recovered from him for his negligent act vide memo dated 28.11.1998 and after examining the reply to the show cause filed by the petitioner, the authority found it lacking any merit and as such ordered for recovery of the aforesaid amount by the impugned order dated 25.9.1999. 5. Mr. Roy Barman, learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned order dated 25.9.1999 is penal in nature and the authority has no power to pass such an order without providing any opportunity to the petitioner in accordance with the relevant Rules namely, the Rules, 1965 as applicable to the employees of the respondent Corporation. He also contends that without any proof of negligence on the part of the petitioner the authority punished him by way of passing the impugned order. They did not try to inquire the actual facts for what reason the shortage occurred after unloading the goods at R.D. Store, Udaipur. Penalty of recovery as imposed on the petitioner falls within the purview of minor penalties as enumerated under Rule 11(iii) of the Rules, 1965. Rule 11(iii) reads as follows: 11. Penalties The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely: (iii) recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of orders; Mr. Rule 11(iii) reads as follows: 11. Penalties The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely: (iii) recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of orders; Mr. Roy Barman submits that for imposing such a penalty on an employee like the petitioner, the authority is bound to follow the procedure as prescribed under Rule 16(1) of the said Rules. For non-observance of the procedure prescribed, the entire order of recovery is vitiated and liable to be set aside the same being arbitrary, unfair and irrational one. Rule 16(1) of the Rules, 1965 provides as follows: 16. Procedure for imposing minor penalties (1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 15, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in Clause (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 shall be made except after. (a) informing the Government servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal; (b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in Sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14, in every case in which the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary; (c) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant under Clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under Clause (b) into consideration; (d) recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and (e) consulting the Commission where such consultation is necessary. 6. Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation while supporting the action of the respondents fairly submits that the procedure followed by the authority for recovery of any amount may not be as per the requirement of law but it is the petitioner who received 10 mt. 6. Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation while supporting the action of the respondents fairly submits that the procedure followed by the authority for recovery of any amount may not be as per the requirement of law but it is the petitioner who received 10 mt. of M.S. Flat (55 x 5 mm) from the R.K. Nagar R.D. Store, West Tripura and he is also the person who handed over the relevant indent along with the materials to the station where the materials were unloaded, i.e. R.D. Godown at Udaipur and the authority passed the impugned order of recovery in view of the letter of the Executive Engineer, R.D. Store Division, Agartala dated 2.9.1998 written to the Managing Director of the Corporation, respondent No. 2 herein wherein it was specifically stated, inter alia, "Under the circumstances I have yet no alternative but to realize the cost of 223 kgs (50 × 5mm size M.S. Flat) for Rs.4132.19 from your bill lying pending with us." After receiving the aforesaid letter, there was no alternative to the respondent Corporation except to recover the said amount from the salary of the petitioner as for his negligence the shortage had occurred. He also contends that the petitioner cannot be allowed to get a clean chit from the court as he himself as the agent of the Corporation so far the transportation of the said goods was concerned put his signature in the overleaf page of Indent No. 49 dated 12.8.1998 (Annexure-R/1) to the affidavit-in-reply) wherein the authority specifically mentioned the loaded quantity of the MS Flat as 10mt. 7. In view of the aforesaid submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court has examined the relevant pleadings of the parties as well as the relevant file being No. F. 9 (248)-GEN(L)/TRTC/99 as produced by Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation. It appears from the pleadings that the respondents though tried to controvert the allegation of the petitioner but did not annex the relevant documents along with their affidavit-in-reply. Therefore, there is no other option before this Court except to go through the relevant file. After going through the relevant file it appears that the respondent No. 2 issued the impugned order dated 25.9.1999 in view of the letter of the Executive Engineer, RD Store Division, Agartala dated 2.9.1998. Therefore, there is no other option before this Court except to go through the relevant file. After going through the relevant file it appears that the respondent No. 2 issued the impugned order dated 25.9.1999 in view of the letter of the Executive Engineer, RD Store Division, Agartala dated 2.9.1998. For better appreciation, the aforesaid letter dated 2.9.1999 is extracted herein below: To The Managing Director T.R.T.C. Agartala Sub:- Non-delivery of 223 kgs of 50 × 5mm size M.S. Flat by the Driver of Truck No. TR01-1865/Realisation of cost from the bill of carrying. Dear Sir, It is seen from the records that the Driver of Truck No. TROl-1865 of your establishment received 10 MT 50 × 5mm size M.S. Flat from the R.D. godown, R.K. Nagar, West District. But at the time of actual delivery he handed-over 9,777 kgs. 50 × 5mm size M.S. Flat to the store keeper of South R.D. go-down at Udaipur. Instead of 10,000 kg. resulting short of 223 kgs. Under the circumstances I have yet no alternative but to realize the cost of 223 kgs (50 × 5mm size M.S. Flat) for Rs.4132.19 from your bill lying pending with us. Yours faithfully, Sd/- 02.09.98 Executive Engineer R.D. Store division Agartala. 8. In response to the aforesaid letter dated 2.9.1999, the respondent No. 5 vide his letter No. F. 5 (10)/TRTC/GT/98/839-42 dated 12.1.1999 requested the Executive Engineer, R D Store Division, Agartala not to fix any liability and/or deduct any amount towards cost of shortage from the carriage bill(s) of the Corporation. The letter dated 12.1.1999 is gainfully extracted hereunder- To The Executive Engineer, R.D. Store Divn., Agartala. Subject-shortage of M.S. Flat. Ref: Your letter No. F. 4 (2)- EE/RDSD/98/99 dt.02.9.98 Sir, ...on receipt of your letter a Memo was issued in the name of driver concerned, Sri Ram Prabesh Chowhan, HVD. A copy of the same is attached herewith for favour of your kind perusal and tentative examination on the issue. In consideration to the above it would be a pleasure if you kindly pass an order for withdrawal-non-fixation of liability and/or non-deduction of the amount, towards cost of shortage from the carriage bill (s) of this Corporation. Yours faithfully, Sd/- 12.01.99 TRAFFIC MANAGER (G) 9. In the relevant file this Court find nothing what exactly happened after the aforesaid letter dated 12.1.1999. Yours faithfully, Sd/- 12.01.99 TRAFFIC MANAGER (G) 9. In the relevant file this Court find nothing what exactly happened after the aforesaid letter dated 12.1.1999. It is not clear whether the Executive Engineer, R.D. Store Division, Arartala conceded to the request of the Corporation or not If the claimed amount towards cost of the shortage of goods was not recovered from the respondent Corporation then according to this Court, the Corporation is not entitled to recover the said amount from the petitioner on the ground of alleged negligence unless the same is proved by way of a regular departmental proceeding as required under the law. 10. As the petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice made a specific statement that at the loaded point the authority used the proper weight scale machine, but at the unloaded point the authority used ordinary scale (Cata) and not only that in place of proper weighing measures as prescribed by the Weight and Measures authority they used bricks for weighing the loaded materials and therefore, the difference might be happened for such discrepancies between the two scale machines in two different points, it was the duty of the authority to examine those aspects as well as the persons who loaded and unloaded the materials in and from the concerned vehicle by way of a proper inquiry before issuing the impugned order of recovery. Without any such inquiry imposing penalty upon an employee like the petitioner is not only unfair but an irrational one and an irrational order is always arbitrary and an arbitrary action violates the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. This being the position, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order passed by the authority without following the provisions contained in Rule 16(1) of the Rules, 1965 (supra) is liable to be interfered with by a court of law to protect a justice seeker like the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.9.1999 (Annexure-C to the writ petition) is set aside. The respondent Corporation is directed to refund the amount to the petitioner, if the same has already been recovered from his salary as ordered by the impugned order dated 25.9.1999. However, the respondent Corporation may proceed against the petitioner for alleged negligence in accordance with law, if so desired. 12. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall stand disposed. 13. However, the respondent Corporation may proceed against the petitioner for alleged negligence in accordance with law, if so desired. 12. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall stand disposed. 13. No order as to cost.