Judgment : N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the order made in W.P.No.6685 of 2012 dated 23.07.2012, insofar as granting liberty to the respondent to proceed with the recovery proceedings by issuing a fresh show cause notice containing full particulars relating to the period of service of the appellant in the region, the total quantified loss in respect of that particular period and the apportionment of the loss during that period among other officers. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was allowed to retire from service by order dated 30.07.2008, on attaining the age of superannuation, without prejudice to the pending finalization of the shortage of seized stock in respect of Gummidipundi godown, however, the condition so imposed, is in violation of the service regulation amended by order dated 06.01.2006, particularly amendment with respect to provision under Rule 13(d). 3. The further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that even though the said Regulation 13(d) empowers the Civil Supplies Corporation to initiate proceedings before retirement, the show cause notice should be served prior to the date of retirement, duly quantifying the amount, for ordering recovery from the person who was allowed to retire. 4. The learned counsel for appellant further submitted that in the case on hand, the appellant was allowed to retire as stated supra. However, the said show cause notice was issued only on 10.09.2008, that too, without quantifying the actual amount, except stating the shortage of total quantity of 908 rice bags, which is equal to 31.177 metric tons noted by the Manager (Audit). An explanation was submitted by the appellant to the said show cause notice and thereafter a sum of Rs.1,73,845/- was ordered to be recovered from the appellant as the proportionate loss. The said order was challenged before the learned Single Judge, who found that the show cause notice was defective, as the notice nowhere states about the amount to be recovered from the appellant. The said order was challenged before the learned Single Judge, who found that the show cause notice was defective, as the notice nowhere states about the amount to be recovered from the appellant. However, the learned Single Judge, granted liberty to the Civil Supplies Corporation to issue a fresh show cause notice, quantifying the total loss in respect of the particular period and the apportionment of the loss during that period among other officers and also directed the appellant to give explanation to such show cause notice and the respondent Corporation was also directed to pass fresh orders. The said portion is objected by the learned counsel for the appellant by contending that as per Regulation 13(d), the show cause notice itself should have been issued prior to the date of retirement and hence, after allowing the appellant to retire subject to recovery proceedings, issuance of show cause notice, after about one month of retirement, is not valid and the respondent had lost their jurisdiction to proceed with the recovery. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. It is not in dispute that on 30.07.2008, the appellant was permitted to retire by issuing the following order:- "Thiru. P.Govindaswamy, Bill Clerk, TNCSE Ltd., Thiruvallur Region who has been permitted to retire from service of TNCSC Ltd on attaining the age of superannuation without prejudice to the pending finalization of shortage of seized stock in respect of Gummidipundi gowdown is relieved from duties on the A.N. of 31.2008". It is also not in dispute that a show cause notice was issued on 10.09.2008, wherein, though the quantity of shortage of rice was mentioned, the quantifying amount was not mentioned. The said defect was noted by the learned Single Judge and therefore, it was set aside, however giving liberty to the respondent to issue a fresh show cause notice. 7. The question that falls for consideration at this juncture is as to whether Regulation 13(d), particularly serving of show cause notice with quantifying amount before the actual date of retirement, is mandatory or directory. 8. 7. The question that falls for consideration at this juncture is as to whether Regulation 13(d), particularly serving of show cause notice with quantifying amount before the actual date of retirement, is mandatory or directory. 8. Useful reference can be made to Regulation 13(d) of TNCSC Employees Service Regulation 1989,which reads as follows:- "The Employees of the Corporation against whom grave charges framed under Regulaiton 4 Chapter V of TNCSC Employees Service Regulation 1989 initiated before retirement but not covered under the Rule 13(a) and 13(b) above or substantial amount of recovery pending against him/her exceeding his/her terminal benefits that could be recovered/adjusted against the dues to the Corporation for which show cause notice was issued duly quantifying the amount and served well before the date of retirement shall be allowed to retire on the date of retirement without prejudice to the departmental action/recovery action pending against him/her". Though the word used is "shall", considering the object behind the Regulation is to recover the loss sustained by the Civil Supplies Corporation, we are of the view that the said provision should be treated as only directory, provided the employee was put on notice prior to the date of retirement that only subject to proceedings, he is allowed to retire. 9. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1952 SC 181 , Dattatraya Moreshwar v. State of Bombay, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the public duties, has observed that when the provisions of statute relate to the performance of a public duty and the case is such that to hold null and void acts done in neglect of such duty, would work serious general inconvenience or injustice to persons who have no control over those entrusted with the duty and at the same time would not promote the main object of legislature. After observing so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has found that it has been the practice of the Courts to hold such provisions to be directory only, the neglect of them not affecting the validity of the acts done. After observing so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has found that it has been the practice of the Courts to hold such provisions to be directory only, the neglect of them not affecting the validity of the acts done. Following the above said decision, the Division Bench of this Court while considering the similar issue, in the case reported in 2008(8) MLJ 231 , S.V.K.SAHASRAMAM v. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, has observed that the question whether an expression used in a Section is mandatory or not has to be decided on various factors and the mere expression of the word “shall” alone is not the decisive of the matter. The Division Bench also considered the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1958-II-LLJ-273, State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal. In the said Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court, it has been observed as follows: “When the provisions of a statute relate to the performance of a public duty and the case is such that to hold null and void acts done in neglect of this duty would work serious general inconvenience, or injustice to persons who have no control over those entrusted with the duty, and at the same time would not promote the main object of the legislature, it has been the practice to hold such provisions to be directory only, the neglect of them, though punishable, not affecting the validity of the acts done.” Thus, the Division Bench of this Court in S.V.K.SAHASRAMAM's case (cited supra) held that the submission of report of the enquiry held under section 81 of the Tamilnadu Cooperative Societies Act beyond the time limit prescribed therein cannot be said as unsustainable, since the said enquiry is an enquiry in public interest in order to find out whether the affairs of a cooperative society are conducted legally or whether there are financial improprieties in the matter of conduct of affairs. Applying the above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Division Bench of this Court to the facts of this case, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was right in granting liberty to the respondent to issue fresh show cause notice as stated supra and proceed afresh. 10. Applying the above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Division Bench of this Court to the facts of this case, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was right in granting liberty to the respondent to issue fresh show cause notice as stated supra and proceed afresh. 10. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that ordering recovery of a sum of Rs.1,73,845/- is a major punishment and hence, unless enquiry is conducted, the appellant may not be in a position to disprove the allegation of loss which was allegedly made by the Corporation. He further submitted that recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by negligence or breach of Regulation or failure to follow instructions is one of the punishments mentioned under the heading Major Penalties under "Disciplinary proceedings Penalties and Appeal Regulations" in Chapter V of the Employees' Service Regulations, 1989, and for awarding such major penalties, the procedure is also contemplated and the said procedure is bound to be followed. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, there cannot be any dispute regarding the procedure to conduct enquiry before passing an order of recovery. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent has got no serious objection to conduct enquiry and for for passing fresh orders as ordered by the learned Single Judge. 12. In view of the above, the writ appeal is dismissed with a direction to the respondent to issue a fresh show cause notice as ordered by the learned Single Judge and if the appellant denies the allegation, the respondent is directed to conduct enquiry as contemplated under the Regulation and pass fresh orders, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the amount quantified for recovery even according to the impugned order is only Rs.1,73,845/- and hence if the appellant is entitled to get any amount other than the said amount of Rs.1,73,845/-, the same shall be paid to the appellant within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.