Judgment :- 1. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Proceedings No.Se.Mu.Order No.A/370/99, dated 21.12.2006 passed by the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Sriperumbudur, the third respondent herein in ordering recovery of a sum to the tune of Rs.55,957/- and the consequential pension proposal sent by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Kancheepuram in Lr.No.A2/17191/04, dated 11.07.07, so far as the portion of recovery is concerned in directing the fourth respondent to recover a sum of Rs.1,60,056/- and quash the same and forbear the respondents from recovering the said sum from the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is a retired Assistant in the Agriculture Department. The third respondent, by his Proceedings, dated 21.12.2006, passed an order to recover a sum of Rs.55.957/-. Subsequently, the Joint Director of Agriculture (i/c) Kancheepuram, sent a letter, dated 11.07.2007 in Lr.No.A2/17191/04 to the Accountant General (A&E), the fourth respondent herein, stating that the writ petitioner, K.Kamalanabhan, formerly Assistant (Selection Grade) had made loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.1,60,056/- and the entire amount be ordered to be adjusted from the DCRG payable to the petitioner and the balance left out may be ordered to be recovered from the arrears of pension, payable monthly pensions and also from the lumpsum amount of commutation payable to the petitioner. 3. Mr.S.Sadasharam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein retired from service on 31.05.1997 on attaining superannuation. After permitting the petitioner to retire on superannuation, the third respondent by his Proceedings, dated 21.12.2006, more than 9 years after the retirement, held that the petitioner herein had caused loss to the tune of Rs.55,957/- and the same could be recovered in lumpsum from the retiral benefits payable to the petitioner. Subsequently, the second respondent, by his letter, dated 11.07.2007 referred to above, informed the Accountant General (A&E), the fourth respondent herein that the petitioner had caused loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.1,60,056/-and the same might be ordered to be adjusted from the DCRG payable to the petitioner and the balance amount left be recovered from the arrears of pension, payable monthly pension and also from the lumpsum amount of commutation payable to the petitioner. 4. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that both the orders have been passed against law, without following the principles of natural justice. According to the learned counsel, no notice was issued on the petitioner, no opportunity was given to the retired Government employee, the petitioner herein. Arbitrarily, the third respondent held that the petitioner had been responsible for an amount of Rs.55,957/- allegedly sustained by the agricultural department and that has to be recovered in lumpsum from his retiral benefits. Subsequently, the second respondent passed an order, nearly 10 years after the retirement of the petitioner to recover a sum of Rs.1,60,056/- stating that the petitioner has sustained loss to the Agriculture Department. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the order passed by the second respondent in his Proc.No.AA1/23225/91, dated 18.04.2005, which reads as follows : Based on the directions issued by the Commissioner of Agriculture, Chennai-5, in the reference 4th cited, the orders of suspension in respect of Thiru.K.Kamalanabhan, Assistant (the then Depot Manager, Sriperumpudur) is revoked and he is deemed to have been retired from Government service w.e.f. 31.5.1997 AN, the date on which he attained the age of superannuation. Consequent to the orders issued now, he is entitled for all the pensionary benefits. 6. As per order, dated 18.04.2005, the Joint Director of Agriculture, Kancheepuram, the second respondent has made it clear that the petitioner was permitted to retire on 31.05.1997, as per the direction given by the first respondent, having revoked the suspension order passed against the petitioner, it was also informed that the petitioner herein is entitled to all pensionary benefits. However, the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Sriperumbudur Taluk, the third respondent herein, subordinate office to the respondents 1 and 2, by his Proceedings, dated 21.12.2006 made in Se.Mu.Order No.A/370/99 has passed an order to deduct a sum of Rs.55,957/-in lumpsum from the retirement benefits payable to the petitioner, contrary to the order, dated 18.04.2005. The Assistant Director has stated that the petitioner had caused loss to the tune of Rs.32,991.31/- and also a sum of Rs.20,079/- as per Audit Report for the year 1987-88. The shortage as per the Register in 1987-88 was to the tune of Rs.2,886/-. The Assistant Director has stated that the petitioner had caused loss to the tune of Rs.32,991.31/- and also a sum of Rs.20,079/- as per Audit Report for the year 1987-88. The shortage as per the Register in 1987-88 was to the tune of Rs.2,886/-. Though the Joint Director, Kancheepuram, the second respondent herein had passed the order, dated 18.04.2005, based on the directions issued by the Commissioner of Agriculture, Chennai, permitting the petitioner to retire on attaining superannuation, stating further that the petitioner herein was entitled for all pensionary benefits. Contrary to the said order, on 21.12.2006, the Assistant Director, the third respondent herein, who is subordinate to the second respondent has passed the order, to recover a sum of Rs.55,957/- in lumpsum from the retirement benefits payable to the petitioner is totally against to the earlier order of the Joint Director issued, as per the directions of the Commissioner of Agriculture, Chennai. 7. Subsequently, on 11.07.2007, the Joint Director of Agriculture (i/c), Kancheepuram sent a communication to the Accountant General (A&E), the fourth respondent herein stating that the petitioner had made loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.1,60,056/-and the entire amount be adjusted from the DCRG and the balance amount left out might be ordered to be recovered from the arrears of pension, payable monthly pensions and from the lumpsum amount of commutation payable to the petitioner. 8. The respondents have not disputed the fact that the petitioner herein was permitted to retire on 31.05.1097, pursuant to the directions issued by the Commissioner of Agriculture, Chennai, as stated in the Proceedings, dated 18.04.2005 by the second respondent and after revoking the orders of suspension passed against the petitioner herein, he was permitted to retire. It was also made clear that the petitioner is entitled to all pensionary benefits, as per the said order. But subsequently, on 21.12.2006, 9 years after the deemed retirement, the third respondent, the Assistant Director, by his Proceedings, dated 21.12.2006 held that an amount of Rs.55,957/- had been the loss caused by the petitioner to the department and the same had to be recovered from the petitioner in lumpsum from his retirement benefits. The aforesaid amount relating to the year 1987-88 and the alleged loss was not an admitted sum by the writ petitioner herein. The aforesaid amount relating to the year 1987-88 and the alleged loss was not an admitted sum by the writ petitioner herein. Though the petitioner was permitted to retire on 31.05.1997, as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, he was not put on notice about the alleged loss caused by him in the year 1987-88 and no opportunity was given. It is seen that the order was passed by the Assistant Director, the third respondent herein without following principles of natural justice by providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, the retired Government servant. 9. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the earlier proceedings and the orders passed thereon by the authorities and this Court. On 04.08.1998, the petitioner herein had been issued with a charge memo alleging misappropriation by the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Kancheepuram and the same was repudiated and denied by the respondents. Subsequently, on 22.08.1989, the third respondent passed an order, directing the recovery a sum of Rs.89,808/-without conducting any enquiry and without passing, finding the petitioner guilty of the charges in the manner known to law. On 08.07.1991, the petitioner was suspended pending investigation in a criminal case until further orders. However, on 01.09.1992, the third respondent recalled the charges levelled against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding, under charge memo, dated 04.08.1998, fresh charges were levelled against the petitioner, under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1955. According to the petitioner, thereafter, no enquiry was conducted and no final orders were passed, finding the petitioner guilty of any charges. 10. The petitioner attained superannuation on 31.05.1997, while he was under suspension from 08.07.1991 and on 19.07.2002, Criminal Appeals preferred against the conviction made in C.C.No.2 of 1991 on the file of the Special Judge & CJM, Chengalput were allowed by this Court and the petitioner was acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. Then the petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.3529 of 2003 and the same was allowed by the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondents in the service and the period of suspension was also directed to be regularised. 11. Then the petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.3529 of 2003 and the same was allowed by the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondents in the service and the period of suspension was also directed to be regularised. 11. The petitioner herein then filed writ petition in W.P.No.30172 of 2004 for implementing the order, dated 21.04.2004 passed inO.A.No.3529 of 2003 by the Tribunal, whereby the respondents were directed to implement the order, dated 21.04.2004 within a period of two months. Since the order, dated 18.10.2004 was not implemented, contempt petition was filed in C.A.No.111 of 2005 and when the same was pending, the first respondent, Commissioner of Agriculture, Chennai, passed an order on 18.04.2005 directing the Joint Director of Agriculture, Kancheepuram, the second respondent herein to take immediate action to revoke the suspension of the petitioner and to settle the terminal benefits immediately without any reservation as to the recovery of any amount. 12. It is not in dispute that following order of the first respondent, the Commissioner of Agriculture, Chennai, the second respondent, Joint Director of Agriculture, Kancheepuram, passed the order referred to above, revoking the order of suspension and stating that the petitioner was deemed to have been retired from service with effect from 31.05.1997, the date on which the petitioner had attained superannuation and the second respondent, Joint Director of Agriculture further stated in the order that the petitioner is entitled for all the pensionary benefits. Then the petitioner filed a Contempt Application No.111 of 2005, pursuant to the order, dated 18.10.2004 passed in W.P.No.30172 of 2004 and the same was closed referring to the orders passed by the respondents on 18.04.2005, which were subsequently, communicated to the petitioner on 08.07.2005. 13. The order, dated 18.04.2005 passed by the second respondent, Joint Director of Agriculture, Kancheepuram, permitting the petitioner deemed to have been retired from service with effect from 31.05.1997 revoking the earlier order of suspension on attaining his superannuation is not disputed by the respondents. In the said order, the second respondent has clearly stated that the petitioner is entitled for all pensionary benefits. In the said order, the second respondent has clearly stated that the petitioner is entitled for all pensionary benefits. After passing this order, revoking the suspension, permitting the petitioner to retire with effect from 31.05.1997 stating that the petitioner is entitled for all pensionary benefits, contrary to the order, the third respondent, subordinate to the respondents 1 and 2 has passed the subsequent order, dated 21.12.2006 holding that the petitioner was liable to compensate the loss incurred by the Department, as per the audit report relating to the year 1987-88 and also ordered to deduct the amount in lumpsum from the retirement benefits. The aforesaid order passed by the third respondent is against the order passed by the second respondent, his superior officer, based on the directions given by the first respondent and further, after permitting the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 31.05.1997, more than 9 years after the retirement, without issuing any notice and providing reasonable opportunity, the order, dated 21.12.2006 has been passed, which is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice, hence, the same is not legally sustianable. 14. Similarly, the Joint Director of Agriculture (i/c), Kancheepuram by the impugned order, dated 11.07.2007 addressed the Accountant General (A&E), the fourth respondent herein to recover a sum of Rs.1,60,056/-and to adjust the amount from the DCGR, arrears of pension, payable monthly pensions and the amount of commutation payable to the petitioner. 15. There is no explanation either in the counter or on the side of the arguments advanced by the respondents, as to how the order was passed by the Joint Director of Agriculture (i/c) on 11.07.2007, nearly 10 years after the deemed retirement of the petitioner, without any basis against the earlier order passed on the direction of the first respondent and also violating the principles of natural justice. 16. The Honble Supreme Court in D.V.Kapoor vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1923 has held that employees right to pension is a statutory right. The measure of deprivation of such right, therefore, must be correlative to or commensurate with the gravity of grave misconduct or irregularity as it offends the right to assistance at the evening of his life as guaranteed under Article 41 of the Constitution. The measure of deprivation of such right, therefore, must be correlative to or commensurate with the gravity of grave misconduct or irregularity as it offends the right to assistance at the evening of his life as guaranteed under Article 41 of the Constitution. In the said case, it was held by the Honble Apex Court that there was no finding that the appellant therein did commit any grave misconduct. In the said Judgment, it has been further held as follows : "7. Rule 9 of the Rules empowers the President only to withhold or withdraw pension permanently or for a specified period in whole or in part or to order recovery of pecuniary loss caused to the State in whole or in part subject to minimum. The employee’s right to pension is a statutory right. The measure of deprivation therefore, must be correlative to or commensurate with the gravity of the grave misconduct or irregularity as it offends the right to assistance at the evening of his life as assured under Article 41 of the Constitution. The impugned order discloses that the President withheld on permanent basis the payment of gratuity in addition to pension. The right to gratuity is also a statutory right. The appellant was not charged with nor was given an opportunity that his gratuity would be withheld as a measure of punishment. No provision of law has been brought to our notice under which, the President is empowered to withhold gratuity as well, after his retirement as a measure of punishment. Therefore, the order to withhold the gratuity as a measure of penalty is obviously illegal and is devoid of jurisdiction. 8. In view of the above facts and law that there is no finding that appellant did not commit grave misconduct as charged for, the exercise of the power is clearly illegal and in excess of jurisdiction as the condition precedent, grave misconduct was not proved. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated November 24, 1981 is quashed..." 17. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated November 24, 1981 is quashed..." 17. In this writ petition, it has been made clear that though there was a criminal case filed against the petitioner, that ended in acquittal, as per the order, dated 18.04.2005 passed by the second respondent, it has been made clear that only on the directions given by the first respondent, suspension order passed against the petitioner herein was revoked and the petitioner was also informed that he was deemed to have been retired from service with effect from 31.05.1997 A.N, the date on which he attained the age of superannuation in order, it was informed by the second respondent that the petitioner is entitled for all pensionary benefits. In such circumstances, the third respondent, a subordinate officer to the respondents 1 and 2 has no authority to pass the impugned order, dated 21.12.2006, contrary to the order passed by the second respondent on the directions of the first respondent. 18. It is seen that the impugned orders have been passed without conducting any enquiry, without giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and without following principles of natural justice. The third respondent has passed the order, violating the order, dated 18.04.2005 for recovering a sum of Rs.55,957/-in lumpsum, stating that the same was decided, as per the audit objection relating to the year 1987-88. There is no proper explanation as to why there was no whisper about the alleged loss incurred by the petitioner in the order, dated 18.04.2005, though it relates to the year 1987-88. In the order, dated 18.04.2005, it has been specifically stated that the petitioner is entitled to all pensionary benefits without any reservation. Therefore, the aforesaid order is exfacie against law, not legally sustainable and liable to be quashed. 19. The order, dated 11.07.2007 has been passed by the Joint Director of Agriculture (i/c) nearly 10 years after the alleged deemed retirement and subsequent to the order, dated 18.04.2005, informing the first respondent that the petitioner was liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,60,056/-. The order is only a communication to the fourth respondent herein and as the order a copy was sent to the petitioner. The order is only a communication to the fourth respondent herein and as the order a copy was sent to the petitioner. The order, dated 11.07.2007 was also passed, without notice to the petitioner and further, it is only an order of communication, without providing opportunity, violating the principles of natural justice and against the earlier order, dated 18.04.2005, on the directions given by the first respondent, that was addressed to the fourth respondent. Hence, the impugned order passed by the second respondent is also liable to be set aside, since the same is exfacie illegal and against principles of natural justice. 20. I could find no justification on the part of the respondents to sustain the impugned proceedings, dated 21.12.2006 passed by the third respondent and the order of communication, dated 11.07.2007 sent by the Joint Director of Agriculture (i/c) to the Accountant General (A&E), the fourth respondent herein, both are unsustainable in law. 21. It is unfortunate that unnecessarily the proceedings have been initiated arbitrarily against law by the respondents, after permitting him to retire from service and informing that he is entitled to all retiral benefits, violating the principles of natural justice. 22. It is well settled that the Democracy survives on "Rule of Law" and in nutshell, the concept of "Rule of Law" is that law should Rule the country through human agency and not according to the whims and fancies of any authority, otherwise equality before law and equal protection of law would not be possible, as guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence any legal action shall be taken only in the manner known to law, without violating principles of natural justice. In the instant case, it is seen that the petitioner was deemed to have retired with effect from 31.05.1997 and he was also informed that he is entitled to all pensionary benefits. However, for the past 13 years, after the deemed retirement, he is struggling by approaching authorities, the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and this Court by filing writ petitions one after another. 23. It is the prerogative and also the duty of any authority to initiate proceedings against erring officials, however, such authority cannot pass any arbitrary order, violating mandatory legal procedures and the principles of natural justice, as it would give a go-bye to the very basis of Rule of Law. 23. It is the prerogative and also the duty of any authority to initiate proceedings against erring officials, however, such authority cannot pass any arbitrary order, violating mandatory legal procedures and the principles of natural justice, as it would give a go-bye to the very basis of Rule of Law. The instant case is a glaring example for such violation, which has to be deprecated. 24. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders passed by the respondents are set aside. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. The respondents are directed to settle the dues payable to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there is no order as to costs.