Judgment : 1. The petitioner filed O.A.No.6224 of 2002. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.8513 of 2007. 2. The petitioner entered into the services of the first respondent department in the year 1967. While the petitioner was working as an Executive Officer in the Melattur Town Panchayat District in Thanjavur District, an audit objection was raised and an amount of Rs.47,135/- was directed to be recovered from the petitioner with regard to transfer of 4.285 MT of Tar to Ammapettai Town Panchayat, as the Ammapettai Town Panchayat did not give credit to the aforesaid quantity of Tar. The petitioner was due to retire on 30.04.2002. Since he was not permitted to retire, the petitioner was constrained to deposit the sum of Rs.47,135/-. 3. A reply affidavit was filed by respondents 1 and 2 stating that they are not responsible for the repayment of the amount, as the petitioner had deposited the said amount to Melattur Town Panchayat. The petitioner had failed to implead the necessary party i.e, The Executive Officer, Town Panchayat, Melattur. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the writ petition for non-joinder of necessary parties. 4. Hence, the petitioner has filed M.P.No.1 of 2014 to implead the Executive Officer, Town Panchayat, Melattur as party third respondent and the said petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2014. 5. A reply affidavit is filed by the third respondent seeking to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice the proceedings of the Regional Deputy Director of Local Fund Audit, Thanjavur in Na.Ka.No.A 6/1234/2002, dated 05.04.2002 addressed to the District Collector, Thanjavur. According to the petitioner, a perusal of the said proceedings would make it clear that the audit objection has no basis and recovery should have been made from the Executive Officer, Ammapettai. 8. The following passage from the proceedings of the Regional Deputy Director of Local Fund Audit, dated 05.04.2002 relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is extracted in this regard :- (“Tamil”) 9. A reading of the aforesaid passage would go to show that some tar was sent from Papanasam Town Panchayat to Melattur Town Panchayat. The same is not in dispute before this Court. A reading of the aforesaid passage would go to show that some tar was sent from Papanasam Town Panchayat to Melattur Town Panchayat. The same is not in dispute before this Court. The dispute is with regard to the tar that was sent from Melattur Town Panchayat to Ammapettai Town Panchayat. While the petitioner claims that 4.285 MT Tar was sent by him to Ammapettai Town Panchayat and the same was also acknowledged by the Executive Officer of Ammapettai Town Panchayat, there is no basis for ordering recovery towards the cost of 4.285 MT Tar from the petitioner. 10. The proceedings of the Regional Deputy Director of Local Fund Audit, makes it clear that the Executive Officer of Ammapettai acknowledged the receipt of 4.285 MT from Melattur Town Panchayat. But he has failed to make necessary entries in the stock register maintained at Ammapettai Town Panchayat and therefore, he observed that recovery shall be made from Ammapettai Executive Officer. But there is no whisper about the said proceedings by the second respondent District Collector in the counter affidavit filed. The third respondent also has not dealt with the aforesaid proceedings of the Regional Deputy Director of Local Fund Audit 11. It is also relevant to note that an amount of Rs.47,135/- was also recovered from the Executive Officer of Ammapettai as stated in the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent. 12. In such circumstances, having recovered the amount from the Executive Officer of Ammapettai, it is not fair to recover the amount from the petitioner also, who is the Executive Officer of Melattur and the same is bad and illegal. Hence, the said recovery is liable to be interfered with. 13. The petitioner was forced to deposit Rs.47,135/- for settlement of terminal benefits, as seen from the reply affidavit. The petitioner has also enclosed the receipt, dated 26.04.2002 for having deposited the said amount. Since the amount was illegally retained by the third respondent, the third respondent is also liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% for the aforesaid amount till repayment. 14. In view of the above, the writ petition stands allowed. The petitioner has also enclosed the receipt, dated 26.04.2002 for having deposited the said amount. Since the amount was illegally retained by the third respondent, the third respondent is also liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% for the aforesaid amount till repayment. 14. In view of the above, the writ petition stands allowed. The third respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.47,135/- along with interest at the rate of 9% to the petitioner from the date of deposit i.e, 26.04.2002 till repayment, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.