Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order dated 07.06.2002 vide ref. No.A.O.NI.No.6103/2001 passed by the Director of Agriculture Marketing and Commercial Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board. 2. The impugned order is only an information to the petitioner, that the departmental proceedings and vigilance enquiry was pending against him, therefore, at this stage, the review petition was not competent. 3. For the reasons best known to the petitioner, he has not chosen to challenge the adverse order passed against him, and has chosen to challenge the order refusing to entertain review petition. 4. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that he is working as Assistant Agriculture Officer in the Agriculture Development Officer, Karunthangodu, Kanyakumari district since 28.06.1995. Earlier, the petitioner was working under Agricultural Officer (Marketing), Tirunelveli. 5. It is submitted that the decision and other transaction of Deputy Agricultural Officer (Marketing) did not concern the petitioner who was merely assisting to the commands and directions given by him. The petitioner was not having authority to take a decision or work independently. The target which was fixed by the respondent No.1 and 2 for collecting label and grading charges straight away went to the Deputy Agriculture Officer (Marketing), and not to the petitioner. 6. The job of the petitioner was only to assist Deputy Agriculture Officer (Marketing) to collect label charges during the year 1992-1995 which was correctly done without any mistake on her part. 7. The petitioner was issued charge memo along with Deputy Agriculture Officer (Marketing) on 18.9.1997 for discrepancy of Rs.4110/-(Rupees four thousand one hundred and ten only). The petitioner appealed to the respondent No.1, 2 and 3, and subsequently, came to know that there was no charge, against Deputy Agriculture Officer (Marketing) who was allowed to retire peacefully. 8. It is also the case of the petitioner that the final order passed by the respondent No.1 was totally against law, as it is nothing but, verbatum copy of the earlier orders passed by the respondent No.1 & 2 showing no application of mind. 9. It is strange that while challenging the final order, in the body of the petition, no relief has been claimed for quashing the basic order passed against her. 10. 9. It is strange that while challenging the final order, in the body of the petition, no relief has been claimed for quashing the basic order passed against her. 10. It is submitted that based upon the notice dated 29.8.2000, the respondent passed a final order dated 7.6.2002 holding the petitioner liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,687/- (Rupees two thousand six hundred and eighty seven only) out of Rs.7,574/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred and seventy four only) without disclosing the reason for deciding the amount of recovery. 11. As already observed above, order dated 7.6.2002 is not an order of recovery, but only an order conveying that the review petition was not competent during pendency of disciplinary proceedings and vigilance enquiry. 12. It is also the submission of the petitioner that the impugned final order was passed by the respondent No.3 with malafide intention, though she did not have any independent responsibilities. That Deputy Agricultural Officer (Marketing) with malafide intention was exonerated and allowed to retire, whereas charge memo was issued to the petitioner to deny her promotion, and thus order of recovery was motivated. 13. The order is also challenged on the ground that it is the outcome of non application of mind, as the job of the petitioner was only to assist the Deputy Agriculture Officer (Marketing), with no independent responsibilities. Therefore, joint charge memo against the petitioner and respondent No.3 was not competent. 14. It is also submitted that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to see the documents, and therefore, order of recovery was illegal and violative of principle of natural justice. 15. As already observed above, the petitioner challenged the order dated 7.6.2002 passed on a review petition which was disposed of only on the ground of pendency of departmental proceedings and vigilance enquiry. The petitioner has not challenged the order of recovery which admittedly, was passed after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to defend herself. 16. The petitioner has also not chosen to challenge the finding recorded by the competent authority ordering recovery from the petitioner for the lapse on her part. 17. The writ petition as framed being not maintainable is ordered to be dismissed, but with no order as to cost.