ORDER 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner retired as Panchayat Sevak on 31st January, 2000 from the services of the respondents and the petitioner was not paid any retirement benefits and, therefore, on earlier occasion also a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 3208 of 2003 was instituted, which was disposed of vide order dated 10th July, 2003 which is at Annexure­1 to the memo of the petition, whereby, a direction was given to the respondents to calculate the legally payable amount and if any amount is to be recovered, an inquiry may be conducted and such amount may be adjusted and rest of the admitted retiral benefits may be paid to the petitioner. 2. Part of the said order reads as under: “If the petitioner has properly utilized the Govt. fund, he may bring the same to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla and Simdega. If required, the concerned Deputy Commissioner may ask for measurement of the work to find out whether the work was actually performed by petitioner or not. After such enquiry and decision, if any amount is found to be adjusted, the respondents may adjust the amount and pay the rest of the admitted retiral benefits to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of representation. In case, the respondents adjust any amount on the ground that the petitioner has not performed the job, they will communicate the detail of adjustment to the petitioner within three months. The writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction.” (Emphasis Supplied) 3. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after the aforesaid order was passed by this Court on 10th July, 2003, without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner unilaterally and arbitrarily, a decision has been taken by the respondents to deduct sizable amount to the tune of Rs. 1,00,278/­ out of which Rs. 2,000/­ was already deducted from the retirement benefits of the petitioner. Now, the legally payable amount is found out at Rs. 98.278/­. For arriving out at this decision, no show cause notice was given to the petitioner nor any opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner. 1,00,278/­ out of which Rs. 2,000/­ was already deducted from the retirement benefits of the petitioner. Now, the legally payable amount is found out at Rs. 98.278/­. For arriving out at this decision, no show cause notice was given to the petitioner nor any opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner. On the contrary, had an opportunity been given to the petitioner and had it been pointed out that the amount received by the petitioner at a relevant time i.e. in the year 1986­87 and 1987­88 and in the respective years, there would have been proper utilization of the said amount. Neither the measurement book, upon which the reliance has been heavily placed, has been supplied to the petitioner. The documents, upon which the reliance has been placed by the respondents while passing the impugned order at Annexure­2 to the memo of the petition, have never been supplied to the petitioner. Some private inquiry was conducted by the Block Development Officer and that was also unilateral inquiry and the report is relied upon while passing the impugned order at Annexure­2. Even this inquiry report of the Block Development Officer was also not supplied to the petitioner. Several documents have been relied upon while passing the impugned order at Annexure­2, but, not a single copy of the document was supplied to the petitioner and, therefore, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order at Annexure­2 may be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was given sizable amount for doing certain work and the work was not completed and, therefore, amount which is required to be recovered from the petitioner comes to Rs. 1,00,278/­ out of which Rs. 2,000/­ has already been recovered and, therefore, now Rs. 98,278/­ is yet to be recovered. Detail calculation has been given in the impugned order on the basis of a report given by the Block Development Officer and the said Block Development Officer has relied upon the measurement book and, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the respondents while passing the impugned order at Annexure­2. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that: (i) The petitioner retired on 31st January, 2000 as Panchayat Sevak. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that: (i) The petitioner retired on 31st January, 2000 as Panchayat Sevak. He was not paid retirement benefits, therefore, he preferred W.P. (S) No. 3208 of 2003, which was decided on 10th July, 2003 with the aforesaid direction that after holding inquiry if any amount is found to be recovered from the petitioner, the same may be recovered, but, unfortunately without holding any inquiry against the petitioner and without giving any opportunity of being heard only on the basis of the report given by the Block Development Officer, an order has been passed to recover the sizable amount to the tune of Rs. 1,00,278/­ from the retirement benefits of the present petitioner. (ii) Moreover, it further appears that the Block Development Officer has already relied upon some documentary evidences, which is known as measurement book, but, never any copy of the same was supplied to the petitioner. Thus, neither the Block Development Officer's report was given to the petitioner nor copy of the measurement book was given to the petitioner. Thus, before passing the impugned order of deduction of sizable amount, neither the show cause notice was given to the petitioner nor any inquiry was conducted by the respondents nor the documents, upon which the heavy reliance has been placed while passing the impugned order, have been supplied to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts, there is gross violation of principle of natural justice. (iii) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that had an opportunity been given to the petitioner, it would have been pointed out by the petitioner to the respondents that sizable amount is received by the petitioner for carrying out the work in the year 1986­87, 1987­88 and 1983­84 have already been properly utilized, but, this unilateral decision has been taken by the respondents. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed at Annexure­2 to the memo of the petition so far as it affects the present petitioner for recovery of the amount, as stated in the impugned order. Liberty is reserved with the respondents to take action against the petitioner, if they are so choosing, in accordance with law, rules, regulations and policies and at least after following the principle of natural justice. 7. Liberty is reserved with the respondents to take action against the petitioner, if they are so choosing, in accordance with law, rules, regulations and policies and at least after following the principle of natural justice. 7. Consequential benefits will be given to the petitioner like payment of pension etc. within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court. 8. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of.