Judgment 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of recovery passed resulting out of loss of books in the library. 2. The petitioner is seriously aggrieved against the imposing of double the amount of value of the books as loss. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Junior Assistant (Librarian) on 16.10.1978. He was posted as Regular Librarian during the year 1995. While he was working at Krishnagiri Government Polytechnic, an allegation of loss of books was made against him, though such lapse cannot be directly attributable on the part of the petitioner in view of open access system and failure to take into account the recommendations of the Library Committee of the Technical Education. Thus, the impugned order of recovery of total alleged loss to the tune of Rs.21,048/- was issued against the petitioner. 4. The petitioner further contended that such order came to be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice. 5. It is his further contention that at the time of alleged loss of books, the recommendations of the Director of Technical Education relating to the Library Committee has to be taken into consideration, since there was a provision for writing off certain number of books. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed denying the contentions raised by the petitioner. 7. Heard the learned counsels on either side. 8. Though the writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order on several grounds, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner confined his submission only with regard to imposition of recovery of double the amount as loss. 9. Even though the petitioner has contended in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that there was a violation of principles of natural justice, perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents would go to show that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity before passing the impugned order. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no violation of principles of natural justice, as contended by him. However, while coming to the quantum of recovery, the impugned order states that the total loss amount in double has to be recovered from the petitioner. Under similar circumstances, this Court has considered the recovery in W.P.Nos.5327 of 2006 etc., on 8.3.2012 and observed in paragraphs 5 and 6 as follows: "5. However, while coming to the quantum of recovery, the impugned order states that the total loss amount in double has to be recovered from the petitioner. Under similar circumstances, this Court has considered the recovery in W.P.Nos.5327 of 2006 etc., on 8.3.2012 and observed in paragraphs 5 and 6 as follows: "5. The fact remains that both the petitioners have retired as early as in the year 2005 and 2006 respectively. It is very unfortunate to note that after their retirement, the petitioners have been directed to compensate for the loss of books, as they were in-charge of the library of the college during their service and they were Professors/Head of the Department of their respective subjects. It is now submitted before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are willing to compensate the actual amount of loss towards missing books. This Court is of the considered view that such an offer by the petitioners is reasonable. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the demand of the respondents insisting the petitioners to purchase the books is unreasonable, as the petitioners should not be subjected to such onerous condition. 6. Accordingly, this Court is constrained to set aside the impugned orders in both the writ petitions subject to the condition of the petitioners paying actual amounts in respect of the missing books, namely, the petitioner in W.P.Nos.5327/2006 shall pay Rs.65,830/- and the petitioner in W.P.No.24218/2006 shall pay Rs.15,000/. The above said amounts payable by the petitioners are liable to be deducted from the retirement monetary benefits of the respective petitioners. It is made clear that after deducting the said amounts from the petitioners' retirement monetary benefits, the balance amount shall be paid to the petitioners along with pensionary benefits within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further made clear that the petitioners shall not claim any interest towards belated payment of retirement monetary benefits." 10. Here also, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to pay the actual loss amount to the respondents and he is aggrieved only against the double payment of actual loss. 11. Considering the said submissions and also considering the similar order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court, this writ petition is ordered as follows: 11.1. 11. Considering the said submissions and also considering the similar order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court, this writ petition is ordered as follows: 11.1. The impugned order of recovery is confirmed, however, only to the extent of value of the actual loss of the books, which the petitioner is liable to pay in 24 monthly installments, as stated in the impugned order. 12. With the modification of the impugned order, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.