Judgment 1. The petitioners filed O.A.Nos.412 and 413 of 2003. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matters stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.Nos.13621 and 13622 of 2007. 2. The petitioners were employed as Assistant Agricultural Officers in the Agricultural Extension Centre, Thurinjapuram and Tiruvannamalai. One of the duties of the Assistant Agricultural Officer is to recommend the farmers to purchase the seeds from the Agricultural Extension Centre. According to the petitioners, in spite of their recommendations, all the seeds could not be sold on time and hence, some quantity of seeds became unfit for germination. Hence, the remaining seeds were sold through the Regulated Marketing Committee and in such process, certain loss was caused to the Government. If those seeds had been sold through Agricultural Extension Centre to the farmers, no loss could have been caused. 3. In such circumstances, the second respondent submitted a write off proposal on 01.06.2001 for the seeds, which became unfit for germination to the first respondent and that the petitioners are not responsible for not selling the entire seeds to the farmers. But the Joint Director of Agriculture, the first respondent herein had rejected the proposal by an order dated 07.01.2002. Hence, the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 29.11.2002, seeking to recover the alleged loss from the petitioners for not selling the seeds through the Agriculture Extension Centre to the farmers. 4. The petitioners have filed the original applications questioning the order of recovery. 5. While admitting the original applications, the Tribunal granted interim order of stay on 31.03.2003 and the same is extracted hereunder:- "These two Original Applications are filed by the Assistant Agriculture Officers in the office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Tiruvannamalai, challenging the orders of recovery, passed against them. As per the impugned order, a sum of Rs.800 is sought to be recovered from the duty salary of each of these applicants. The order of recovery is found in page 10 of the type set of papers. It seems the Department is trying to recover the loss caused to the Government because seeds entrusted to the officers for sale have been allowed to be kept even beyond the period of germination and they have allowed it to become a wastage. The order of recovery is found in page 10 of the type set of papers. It seems the Department is trying to recover the loss caused to the Government because seeds entrusted to the officers for sale have been allowed to be kept even beyond the period of germination and they have allowed it to become a wastage. A reading of the order would show that the same has been passed without issuing a show cause notice to the applicants or without even asking explanation from them. Therefore interim stay is granted. Issue notice returnable by 28.02.2003." 6. A reply affidavit is filed stating that the petitioners are responsible for not selling the entire seeds through the Agriculture Extension Centre and therefore, the balance seeds were sold through the Regulated Marketing Committee at a lower price and this resulted in the loss to the Government. 7. The alleged loss that was caused by the petitioners as per the impugned order is as follows:- “TABLE” in (TAMIL)” 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners could not be blamed for not selling the entire seeds to the farmers. Since some seeds were not sold through Agricultural Extension Centre and were sold through Regulated Marketing Committee at a lesser price, the difference could not be recovered from the petitioners. The learned counsel would further submit that the second respondent had sent a write off proposal for the seeds, which became unfit for germination, to the first respondent. But the said proposal was rejected by the first respondent as narrated above, which resulted in the passing of the impugned order. 9. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioners and hence, the impugned order is bad and illegal. 10. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner did not properly account the seeds and there was a shortage in the seeds. The allegation is that some seeds were not sold to the farmers through the Agricultural Extension Centre and were sold through Regulatory Marketing Committee at lesser price. 11. 10. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner did not properly account the seeds and there was a shortage in the seeds. The allegation is that some seeds were not sold to the farmers through the Agricultural Extension Centre and were sold through Regulatory Marketing Committee at lesser price. 11. In my view, the petitioners could not be blamed for not selling the entire seeds to the farmers and if some quantities were not sold through Agricultural Extension Centre, the petitioners could not be asked to bear the burden of difference in price that were sold through Regulatory Marketing Committee. 12. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the second respondent, who passed the impugned order initially made a recommendation that the petitioners are not responsible for not selling the entire seeds to the farmers and therefore, the loss caused due to the sale of the remaining seeds through Regulatory Marketing Committee cannot be recovered from the petitioners. But the proposal of the second respondent was rejected by the first respondent. But those correspondences are internal correspondence and the petitioners were not heard before passing the impugned order for recovery in the said circumstances. 13. A perusal of the records would go to show that the petitioners were retired from service long back and the amount is also very meagre. The aforesaid narration of facts also make it clear that the petitioners cannot be held responsible for not selling the entire seeds to the farmers through Agricultural Extension Centre. 14. In the normal circumstances, the matters could be remanded to the respondents to hear the petitioners and pass a fresh order. But I am not inclined to do the same in the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly, since I have come to the conclusion that the petitioners cannot be blamed for not selling the entire seeds to the farmers through Agricultural Extension Centre, but sold through Regulatory Marketing Committee. 15. For all the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and accordingly, they are set aside. The writ petitions are allowed. No costs.