JUDGMENT By the Court.—Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. 2. Heard Shri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri J.P. Pandey for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the petition may be disposed of. 4. These two writ petitions have been filed against the identical order dated 8.10.2009, by which the Managing Director has directed for ensuring the recovery against the petitioners of the amount as mentioned in the impugned order. The petitioners were working on the post of Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer respectively. A theft took place in the electricity Workshop on 10/11.2.2009 in which the copper scrap was stolen. An F.I.R. was lodged against the two P.R.D. Constables. Police after investigation submitted a final report which is pending consideration before the Magistrate. An inquiry committee was constituted which submitted a report fastening the responsibility on the petitioners. The order states that the petitioners are responsible and the amount be put as an advance against them and the competent authority may take steps for recovery. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners challenging the order contended that the impugned order has been passed without any notice and without any opportunity. He submits that the liability has been fastened of recovery against the petitioners for an amount of Rs. 11,83,100/- which could not have been done without following any procedure of law. 6. Shri J.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents submits that against the petitioners at best only minor penalty has been awarded for which it was not necessary to issue any notice. He has relied on The Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (Officers and Servants) (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1975. Regulation 2 which is relevant is quoted below : “2. All matters relating to conduct and discipline (including matters relating to punishment) and to termination, reversion and compulsory retirement of persons appointed : (a) to the Board, (b) Government servants who were originally employed under the State Government and after resignation were absorbed in the service of the Board in pursuance of State Government order No. 3670- E/71-XXIII-PB, dated July 1,1971, the Board may initiate or recommence any disciplinary proceedings in respect of their acts and ommissions during the period when they were employed under the State Government except in cases where disciplinary proceedings were finally concluded on merits while they were so employed under the Government. (c) Such servants of the Board as are workman employed in any industrial establishment under the control of the Board, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force; shall be regulated mutatis mutandis and subject to any other regulation for the time being in force (including Regulations 1-A and above and 3,4 and 6 below) by rules and orders for the time being in force and applicable to corresponding categories of Government Servants under the rule making control of the Governor or the State Government by reference to the Board.” 7. Regulations provide for recovery from pay of the whole or part of the pecuniary loss as one of the punishment. Regulation 2 as indicated above, provides that the disciplinary proceedings shall be regulated in accordance with the rules and orders for the time being applicable to the corresponding categories of the Government Servants. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 shall be applicable. Rule 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 provides for procedure for imposing minor penalties. Rule 10 is quoted below : “10. Procedure for imposing minor penalties.—(1) Where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied that good and sufficient reasons exist for adopting such a course, it may, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) impose one or more of the minor penalties mentioned in Rule 3. (2)The Government servant shall be informed of the substance of the imputations against him and called upon to submit his explanation within a reasonable time. The Disciplinary Authority shall, after considering the said explanation, if any, and the relevant records, pass such orders as he considers proper and where a penalty is imposed, reason thereof shall be given. The order shall be communicated to the concerned Government servant.” 9. According to Rule 10 (2) of the Rules, 1999 before imposing a minor penalty, government servant is entitled to be informed about the substance of the imputations against him and he has to be given an opportunity to submit his explanation. A perusal of the order impugned makes it clear that the procedure as prescribed under Rule 10(2) has not been followed. Neither petitioners have been informed about the imputations nor they were given any opportunity to have their say. 10. A perusal of the order impugned makes it clear that the procedure as prescribed under Rule 10(2) has not been followed. Neither petitioners have been informed about the imputations nor they were given any opportunity to have their say. 10. In view of the aforesaid, the order impugned dated 8.10.2009 cannot be sustained and is hereby set-aside. 11. Writ petitions succeed and are allowed. We, however, make it clear that it shall be open for the competent authority to take such steps as permissible under law. ————