Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 23.08.2010 with respect to recovery of the dues from the petitioner. The impugned order reads as under: "Rc.No.B2/SD/2010Date: 23.08.2010 MEMO Sub: Thiru S.Mahalingam, S.M. Amount due by him – Pending Recovery – regarding. Ref: Closing of Accounts Schedule as on 31.03.2010 ------ It was noticed in the closing of accounts Schedules above cited, that the amount due by Thiru S.Mahalingam, S.M. Under the following heads of accounts are pending recovery till 31.03.2010. S.No. Head of Account Amount outstanding as on 31.03.2010 Rate of Recovery per month 1 Stock Deficit 3,65,559.20 1500/- Thiru S.Mahalingam, S.M., is therefore informed that the above said dues will be recovered from his/her salary as per Head Office Standing Instructions commencing from the month of August 2010." 2. The impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the order is without jurisdiction as the arbitration proceedings were in favour of the petitioner. 3. It has been averred by the petitioner in the affidavit that the respondent had initiated arbitration proceedings, against the petitioner, and that the award went in favour of the petitioner, against which no appeal was filed. The award passed in favour of the petitioner has attained finality. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that both Civil and criminal proceedings also went in favour of the petitioner. Inspite of this, the respondent issued impugned order with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioner at the time of his retirement, with malafide intention. 5. Notice was issued to the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents is unable to defend the impugned order, as the facts stated in the affidavit are not disputed. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioner is guilty of violating service rules as he failed to approach the Managing Director against the impugned order passed by the Regional Manager. 7. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that though the order was passed by the Regional Manager without application of mind, still it was the duty of the petitioner to bring it to the notice of the first respondent, so that order could be withdrawn. 8. 7. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that though the order was passed by the Regional Manager without application of mind, still it was the duty of the petitioner to bring it to the notice of the first respondent, so that order could be withdrawn. 8. It is not disputed that the order has not been withdrawn, inspite of service of notice of this writ which clearly shows that deliberate attempt was made to harass the petitioner at the verge of his retirement with some ulterior motives. The Managing Director also has not chosen to set aside the impugned order till date. 9. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. 10. The petitioner shall also entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to be paid by the respondent No.1, as the petitioner was forced to approach this Court, against an order which on the face of it is without jurisdiction and passed with a motive to harass the petitioner. Miscellaneous petition is closed.