Judgment :- 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the fifth respondent, dated 11. 1999, asking the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.51,333.75/-, which is said to be the value of the stock deficit in rice, dhal and oil. The impugned order has been passed based on the audit report relating to the year 1989-90. 2. The main contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without giving the petitioner prior notice and without giving him an opportunity to putforth his case. Further, the petitioner was not in service, when the impugned order had been passed. 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had not refuted the statements made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Thus, it is clear that the impugned order has been passed by the first respondent without following the principles of natural justice and therefore, it cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.