JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has in the writ petition questioned the validity of recovery orders dated 6.6.1994 and 15.10.1994 by which respondents have sought to recover a sum of Rs.2,39,053.61 from him. 3. Shri Vikram Singh Nain, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that recovery was sought to be made on the premise that petitioner while working as Camp In charge/Link Officer between the Lottery Department of the State and the agents of Lottery Department in Chennai failed to discharge due diligence in collecting sale and price money from the agents so appointed by the Department. According to petitioner, he used to regularly collect and sent the sale money and price money in the prescribed form. It was duty of Director of Lottery Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur to point out if there was any discrepancy in the details sent in the prescribed form. For first time on 25.6.1985 a letter sent to petitioner stating that a sum of Rs.13,572.10 was outstanding regarding 88th draw. This letter shows that there was nothing pending against the petitioner prior to 88th drawn. It is submitted that two years after transfer of petitioner from that posting, respondents served upon him a letter dated 26.3.1987 stating that a sum of Rs.1,89,939.65 was wrongly adjusted by him under different heads as there were certain calculation mistakes. Petitioner was shocked to receive such letter and he submitted reply thereto on 15.4.1987. Petitioner met various officers personally also to explain to the respondents practical difficulties in releasing the amount from the ticket agents. It is contended that respondents held the enquiry and appointed Shri R. K. Singh, as Enquiry Officer, who is of rank of Chief Accounts Officer, in November, 1991, whose submitted enquiry report in April, 1992 in which he clearly exonerated petitioner, copy of enquiry report is on record. Despite detailed discussion in the enquiry showing innocence of petitioner, respondents are still insisting to make recovery from petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that Rs.6,444/- was illegally recovered from the salary of petitioner. Subsequently however, this Court vide order dated 27.11.1995 in the present writ petition stayed the order of recovery. Learned counsel relied on judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Man Mohan Sharma : 2008 WLC (Raj.) UC 659 . Learned counsel submitted that Rs.6,444/- was illegally recovered from the salary of petitioner. Subsequently however, this Court vide order dated 27.11.1995 in the present writ petition stayed the order of recovery. Learned counsel relied on judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Man Mohan Sharma : 2008 WLC (Raj.) UC 659 . Learned counsel contended that subsequently the respondents have held a disciplinary enquiry under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 against the petitioner, in which also Enquiry Officer has by his report dated 18.8.2008 exonerated petitioner from all the charges. It is, therefore, prayed that writ petition be allowed and impugned orders of recovery be set aside and the deducted amount of Rs.6,444/- be ordered to be refunded with interest @ 10% per annum. 4. Shri Zakir Hussain, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and reiterated the stand of respondents that recovery ought to be made from petitioner. 5. On being pointedly asked whether any disciplinary enquiry is pending against the petitioner or not, learned counsel for the respondents was not in position to controvert the position that petitioner was exonerated earlier in the disciplinary enquiry held by Shri R. K. Singh and subsequently in the departmental enquiry also held under Rule 16 of CCA Rules. 6. In view of above, impugned orders of recovery cannot be sustained. At the same time, action of respondents in deducting a sum of Rs.6,444/- also cannot be justified. 7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned recovery orders dated 6.6.1994 and 15.10.1994 are quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to refund, if any, recovery of amount has been made from the salary of petitioner including the amount of Rs.6,444/- together with interest @ 6% per annum within three months from the date copy of this order is produced before them.Writ Petition Allowed *******