JUDGMENT : Sujoy Paul, J. 1. Petition retired on attaining age of superannuation on 31.10.2007. The grievance put forth is that although other retiral dues were released, the PF amount has not been released. Initially the entire amount was withheld but on preferring representations, certain amount were released on installments. However, lastly amount of Rs. 1,85,954/- of this petitioner towards GPF is still withheld by the respondents. This is admitted between the parties that this amount is arising out of provident fund of the petitioner. 2. Shri P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, by taking this court to communication dated 11th December, 2012 (Annexure P/17), submits that petitioner was not responsible in any manner for the loss in the storage. This was certified by the Scientific Storage Officer of the respondent Department. Despite this certification, respondents have not released the amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that without affording any opportunity to the petitioner, the said amount has been withheld which is impermissible, arbitrary and capricious in nature. 3. Per Contra, Shri B.S. Bhadoriya, learned counsel for the Corporation, relied on various paragraphs of the return. It is stated that permissible loss of the storage is up to 0.5%. If loss is beyond aforesaid percentage, it can be recovered under Rule 22(1)(e) of M.P. State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulation, 1962 (for brevity 'the regulations'). It is further submitted that the amount has been withheld under Rule 22(1) (e) of the said regulations. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Before dealing with the matter, it is apt to take a birds eye view of the relevant provisions. Rule 22(1)(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) read as under :- "1. Any employee committing a breach of the regulations of the Corporation or being guilty of negligence, inefficiency or indolence in performance of his duties or knowingly doing anything detrimental to the interests of the Corporation or in conflict with its instructions or committing a breach of discipline or being guilty of any other act of Misdemeanor or is convicted of a criminal offence shall be liable to the following penalties :- (a) Fine (b) Censure. (c) Delay or stoppage of increments or promotion. (d) Reduction to a lower post his permanent class or to a lower stage in his incremental stage. (c) Delay or stoppage of increments or promotion. (d) Reduction to a lower post his permanent class or to a lower stage in his incremental stage. (e) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by the employee. (f) Removal. Regulation 22(2)(iv) reads as under:- "(iv) No punishment other than that specified in Sub-Regulation (1)(a), (1)(b), and (1) (c) shall be imposed on any employee without formal charges being framed against him and without giving him an opportunity for tendering an explanation in writing and cross-examining the witness against him, if any, and of producing defence." 6. A bare reading of regulation aforesaid, makes it crystal clear that recovery is a statutory punishment under the regulations. Sub-rule (iv) is couched in mandatory language, which makes it obligatory for the employer to impose punishment only when formal charge sheet is issued and employee is given effective opportunity of tendering explanation in writing followed by evidence to be lead by the parties. In the present case, there is no material on record to show that mandatory provision of affording opportunity as per clause 22(2)(iv) was given to the petitioner. Thus action of withholding of provident fund runs contrary to clause 22 on which heavy reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the Corporation. Apart from this, clause (e) only permits recovery from pay to whole or part of the pecuniary loss. This clause even otherwise cannot be used to the extent of recovering the amount from the provident fund of the employee. This is settled in law that PF is a retiral due and it is played to the employee on the December of his life so that he can keep his body and soul together. It is also paid so that he can settle down in life and discharge his social obligations. It is a 'property' as per Article 300(A) of the constitution. This is settled in law that retiral dues can be withheld only as per the procedure prescribed in law otherwise it hits Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. This court has taken this view in Bhaskar Ramchandra Joshi Vs. State of M.P. and Ors) reported in : 2013 (4) M.P.L.J. 35. Relevant portion reads as under :- "10. The Apex Court on different occasions had considered the scope and ambit of property. In Madhav Rao Scindia Vs. This court has taken this view in Bhaskar Ramchandra Joshi Vs. State of M.P. and Ors) reported in : 2013 (4) M.P.L.J. 35. Relevant portion reads as under :- "10. The Apex Court on different occasions had considered the scope and ambit of property. In Madhav Rao Scindia Vs. Union of India : AIR 1971 SC 530 opined that Privy Purse payable to ex-rulers is property. In Nagraj, K v. State of A.P. AIR 1985 SC 553, Apex Court opined that right of person to his livelihood is property which is subject to rules of retirement. In State of Kerala v. Padmanabhan : AIR 1985 SC 356 the Apex Court opined that right of pension is property under the Government service Rules, In Madhav Rao Scindia Vs. State of M.P.,: AIR 1961 SC 298 and State of M.P. Vs. Ranojirao, : AIR 1968 SC 1053 , the Apex Court opined that property in the context of Article 300A includes 'money', salary which has accrued pension, and cash grants annually payable by the Government; pension due under Government Service Rules; a right to bonus and other sums due to employees under statute. This view was also taken in : AIR 1971 SC 1409 (Deokinandan Vs. State of Bihar). Bombay High Court in the case reported in : (2012) 3 Mah. L.J. 126 (Shapoor M. Mehra Vs. Allahabad Bank) opined that retiral benefits including pension and gratuity constitute a valuable right in property. In Deokinandan (supra) Apex Court opined as under: "(i) The right of the petitioner to receive pension is property under Article 31(1) and by a mere executive order the State had no powers to withhold the same. Similarly, the said claim is also property under Article19(1)(f) and it is not saved by sub-article (5) of Article 19. Therefore, it follows that the order denying the petitioner right to receive pension affects the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 19(1)(f) and31(1) of the Constitution and as such the writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable." Same view is taken by Supreme Court in : 2013 AIR SCW 4749 (State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr.). 7. In the light of aforesaid, it is clear that respondents have withheld the provident fund, which is retrial due, without any authority of law. Action of respondents in withholding said amount runs contrary to Mandate of Rule 22 aforesaid. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr.). 7. In the light of aforesaid, it is clear that respondents have withheld the provident fund, which is retrial due, without any authority of law. Action of respondents in withholding said amount runs contrary to Mandate of Rule 22 aforesaid. Resultantly, the action of the respondents is held to be illegal. Respondents are directed to pay the said amount of PF to the petitioner within sixty days. Since, respondents have withheld the amount for reasons which are solely attributable to the respondents and without authority of law, petitioner is entitled to get interest in view of judgment of Supreme Court in : (1994) 2 SCC 240 (Union of India Vs. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia (Retd.) and Others.). Relevant portion reads as under :- "Once it is established that an amount legally due to a party was not paid to it, the party responsible for withholding the same must pay interest at a rate considered reasonable by the Court." 8. In the result, respondents are directed to release the remaining amount of provident fund within sixty days from the date of production of certified copy of this order with interest @ 12% per annum till realization of the amount. Petition is allowed. No costs.