ORDER : The petitioner filed O.A.No.2168 of 2003. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.16786 of 2007. 2. The petitioner's husband one Mr.R.Rengan, was employed as a Junior Engineer under the control of the second respondent. While he was incharge of RLEGP Section at Kovilpatti, during the period from 29.06.1987 to 19.07.1989, certain allegations were made against him. By the proceedings of the Executive Engineer, dated 05.12.1989, he was placed under suspension. 3. Thereafter a charge memo dated 28.03.1990 was issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A) Rules. 5 allegations were made against the petitioner's husband, which reads as follows:- "a) That he failed to maintain NM Rolls. b)That by not maintaining NM Rolls and he committed malpractices and misappropriated Government Money. c)That there was shortage of food grains to the value of Rs.5,97,048/- in the Godown under his control. d) & e) That he failed to hand over his section charges to his successor Thiru S.Dhanushkodi, J.E. consequent on his relief on suspension." 4. An Enquiry was held by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Thambraparani Division, Palayamkottai. The Enquiry officer gave his report dated 29.06.1990 holding that the second charge was not proved and a separate disciplinary enquiry is required for the third charge to fix the liability of various persons, who are responsible for the loss. He held that other charges were proved. It is relevant to extract the findings of the Enquiry Officer relating to charge No.3, as the same is the basis for the recovery of huge amount from the employee:- Findings on Charge III "The quantity of food grains such as rice and wheat is measured by weighment and the actual shortage is arrived at. No such weighment of the food grains has been done by the Superintending Engineer on 19.7.89. But the shortage of food grains worth about Rs.5,97,047.70 has been shown in this charges as a result of a verification. The date of verification and officer who verified the quantity have not been mentioned in the charge sheet. The explanation of Thiru R.Rengan, Junior Engineer that his predecessor did not hand over the food grains properly is not acceptable. But the shortage of food grains worth about Rs.5,97,047.70 has been shown in this charges as a result of a verification. The date of verification and officer who verified the quantity have not been mentioned in the charge sheet. The explanation of Thiru R.Rengan, Junior Engineer that his predecessor did not hand over the food grains properly is not acceptable. It is his duty to take over the food grains after weighing the quantity and to report the shortage within the stipulated period of one month from the date of taking over of the charges. The loss of weight on account of various factors by insects eat is to be assessed to the extent permissible as per rules and conditions. The Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Tuticorin Dn., in his letter No.510/90/A4 dated 25.06.1990 has reported that the annual certificate of balances for the year ending 31.3.90 and the reconciliation therefor is to be received from the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD (defund) R.L.E.G.P. sub-division, Kovilpatti and the present shortages is to be assessed. Thiru R.Rengan, Junior Engineer is also responsible for the shortages of materials. The shortages to which Thiru R.Rengan, Junior Engineer is responsible is to be worked out by the Executive Engineer, PWD Tuticorin division with reference to certificate of annual verification of balances as on 31.3.90 and the reconciliation statement therefor. However it is clear that there are shortage in the balance quantity of rice and wheat. The Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Tuticorin division, Tuticorin is to find out the shortages and recover the cost by initiating separate disciplinary proceedings." 5. After the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the matter was kept pending for about 10 years and the punishment order dated 03.08.2001 was passed by the second respondent imposing the penalty of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect and also recovery of Rs.5,97,048/-. Later, by an order dated 15.10.2001, the said amount was sought to be recovered at the rate of Rs.3800/- p.m. in 61 instalments and the balance amount to be recovered from his terminal benefits. 6. It is stated that after two months of the passing of the aforesaid punishment order dated 03.08.2001, the petitioner's husband viz., R.Rengan died on 31.10.2001. Thereafter, the wife of Mr.R.Rengan has filed this Original Application (W.P.No.16786 of 2007) challenging the order dated 15.10.2001 that sought to recover the amount of Rs.5,97,048/-. 7. 6. It is stated that after two months of the passing of the aforesaid punishment order dated 03.08.2001, the petitioner's husband viz., R.Rengan died on 31.10.2001. Thereafter, the wife of Mr.R.Rengan has filed this Original Application (W.P.No.16786 of 2007) challenging the order dated 15.10.2001 that sought to recover the amount of Rs.5,97,048/-. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the Enquiry officer held that he did not record any finding of guilt against the husband of the petitioner with regard to Charge No.3, the Disciplinary Authority recorded a finding of guilt in the punishment order, without hearing the husband of the petitioner on his differed views from that of the Enquiry Officer. 8. The learned counsel has relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2012 (1) LLN 589 (DB) (Mad.) [M.Mohandas v. State Bank of India, rep. by Deputy General Manager and another], wherein, the Division Bench after considering various judgments of the Apex Court has held that punishment order based on the differed views without notice is bad and illegal. 9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader has sought to sustain the impugned order. 10. I have considered the submissions made on either side. 11. The entire portion in the punishment order dated 03.08.2001 relating to Charge No.3 is extracted in this regard:- "Charge No.3: According to the copy of the report of the Executive Engineer P.W.d., ,Tuticorin Division, Tuticorin, sent to the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Tirunelveli, Kanyakumari Circle, Palayamkottai in his letter dated 2.1.90, the Assistant Engineer PWD., Kovilpatti regular section was directed to take over the food grains from Thiru R.Rengan, Junior Engineer vide Executive Engineer's proceedings dated 5.12.89, on his relief on suspension. Accordingly, the Assistant Engineer PWD., Kovilpatti Regular Section took an inventory of the stock of food grain in the presence of the following officials:- Thiruvalargal 1.G.Ananthakumar, Assistant Executive Engineer, RLEGP Sub Division, Kovilpatti, 2.N.Vajramanickam, Assistant Executive Engineer, Kovilpatti Sub Division, Kovilpatti. Accordingly, the Assistant Engineer PWD., Kovilpatti Regular Section took an inventory of the stock of food grain in the presence of the following officials:- Thiruvalargal 1.G.Ananthakumar, Assistant Executive Engineer, RLEGP Sub Division, Kovilpatti, 2.N.Vajramanickam, Assistant Executive Engineer, Kovilpatti Sub Division, Kovilpatti. 3.C.Desaiyan, Assistant Engineer, Kovilpatti Section, Kovilpatti 4.V.Alagudurai, Junior Engineer, RLEGP Section No.III, Kovilpatti 5.M.Subramaniam, Work Inspector, Kovilpatti Section 6.G.Gurusamy, Work Inspector, Ettayapuram Section 7.R.Rengan, Junior Engineer (The Delinquent Officer) 8.Suresh, Agent of Thiru R.Rengan, Junior Engineer (the Delinquent Officer) According to the report of the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, Kovilpatti Sub Division (Regular) the process of weighment and segregation of food grains was done on 6.12.89, 11.12.89 and from 23.12.89 and was completed on 2.1.90 and the quantity attacked food grains was as :- Left Side Godown Right Side Godown Total 1 Wheat before segregation 52.267 M.T. 19.025 MT 71.292 MT 2 Wheat after segregation 39.643 MT 13.520 MT 53.163 MT The wasted wheat due to segregation were stacked at RLEGP Sub Division's Godown. Similarly the inventory revealed the following quantities of foodgrains found short. Qty. to be available as per records Qty Available Shortage 1 Common rice 55.3515 MT NIL 55.3515 MT 2 Super fine rice 90.6520 MT 53.6560 MT 36.9960 MT 3 Wheat 247.3230 MT 53.1630 MT 194.1600 MT According to the report of the Executive Engineer PWD., Tuticorin Division, Tuticorin dated 2.1.90 even after the issue of Telegrams, letter by RPAD and personal requests the Junior Engineer Thiru R.Rengan, had not handed over godown day books for references. Therefore the balance food grains available at the godown had been arrived with reference to the records available at RLEGP Sub Division, Kovilpatti and regular Sub Division, Kovilpatti. It is therefore clear from the above facts that several attempts had been made by the Department to obtain the records connected with the food grain from Thiru. R.Rengan, Junior Engineer. But he had deliberately failed to produce them to his superiors for verification of stores with the intention to cover up his misdeeds. Therefore there was no other option for the Department officials except to weigh the food grains attacked at Godown with reference to the records available in the Sub Division Office. Such verification of stores was also done in the presence of five officials, Thiru R.Rengan, Junior Engineer the delinquent and his agent Thiru Suresh. If at all he had any objection in the mode of verification. Such verification of stores was also done in the presence of five officials, Thiru R.Rengan, Junior Engineer the delinquent and his agent Thiru Suresh. If at all he had any objection in the mode of verification. But he had not done so despite the fact he was present at the time of verification of stores. As such the Chief Engineer (General) is of the opinion that the contention of the Inquiry Officer that the food grains have to be weighed again and separate charges have to be framed against the concerned officials is not acceptable. Similarly, the explanation of the delinquent Thiru. R.Rengan, Junior Engineer that the food grains were spoiled and his predecessor had not handed over him the section charges properly etc., cannot be accepted on the backdrop of the factual report of the Executive Engineer PWD., Tuticorin Division, Tuticorin. The Chief Engineer (General) therefore observe that the charge of shortage of food grains to a value of Rs.5,97,048/- framed against Thiru R.Rengan, Junior Engineer is proved beyond any reasonable doubt." 12. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in the following words:- "...As such the Chief Engineer (General) is of the opinion that the contention of the Inquiry Officer that the food grains have to be weighed again and separate charges have to be framed against the concerned officials is not acceptable..." 13. Admittedly, the second respondent, before passing the punishment order of recovery of huge sum of Rs.5,97,048/- from terminal benefits, did not hear the husband of the petitioner by issuing his tentative differed conclusion on the findings of the Enquiry Officer on Charge No.3. 14. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Division Bench of this Court has surveyed all the judgments on this aspect and has categorically held that when Enquiry Officer held the charges are not proved, the order of the Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment straightaway, without hearing the delinquent on the differed views of the disciplinary authority from that of the Enquiry Officer, is bad and illegal. The Division Bench relied on the following judgments of the Apex Court for coming to the aforesaid conclusion:- i) Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, 1998 (2) CTC 742 (SC) : 1998 (7) SCC 84 ; ii) Yoginath D.Bagde v. State of Maharashtra, 2000 (1) LLN 39 (SC) : 1999 (7) SCC 739 ; iii) S.B.I and others v. Arvind K.Shukla, 2001 (3) CTC 765 (SC) : CDJ 2001 SC 2517; iv) SBI and others v. K.P.Narayanan Kutty, 2003 (1) LLN 839 (SC) : 2003 (2) SCC 449 ; v) Ranjit Singh v. Union of India, 2006 (3) LLN 137 (SC) : 2006 (4) SCC 153 ; vi) Punjab National Bank v. K.K.Verma, 2010 (13) SCC 494 ; and vii) V.Arulkumar v. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd., rep. by its Board of Directors, 2010 (3) LLN 764. 15. It is also useful to extract Paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Division Bench :- "12. In service jurisprudence, it is open to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct an enquiry or to appoint an Inquiry officer to look into the matter and to submit his report. In case, inquiry was conducted by the Disciplinary Authority, opportunity of hearing has to be given by him to the delinquent. In case, an Inquiry Officer is appointed and he submits a report, there are two courses open to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority in his discretion may accept the report. In case the Disciplinary Authority is dissatisfied with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and proposes to arrive at a different conclusion, he should indicate the tentative reasons to the delinquent. The delinquent should be given an opportunity to submit his version with respect to the tentative findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority. There is a laudable purpose in giving such an opportunity. It would enable the delinquent to plead and convince the Disciplinary Authority to accept the views expressed by the Inquiry Officer rather than to take a different view in the matter. Therefore, this is a very valuable right given to the employee. The Courts have time and again indicated the importance of this right." 16. The Disciplinary authority has ultimately passed the order of punishment of recovery as stated above. 17. Therefore, this is a very valuable right given to the employee. The Courts have time and again indicated the importance of this right." 16. The Disciplinary authority has ultimately passed the order of punishment of recovery as stated above. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not questioned the order dated 03.08.2001, relating to imposition of punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. 18. As far as the recovery is concerned, the same is related to Charge No.3. The Disciplinary Authority came to the conclusion that the Charge no.3 was established, when no such finding was recorded by the Enquiry Officer. In those circumstances, it is incumbent on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to record his dissent views and hear the views of the delinquent employee on his differed views before imposing the punishment. But the said procedure is not followed. 19. Hence, the order of recovery is violative of principles of natural justice and the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in M.Mohandas' case (supra). 20. Further more, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no reason given by the second respondent for keeping the matter pending for more than 10 years, when Enquiry Officer sent his report in 1990 itself. 21. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the order of recovery is liable to be set aside. It is stated that an amount of Rs.3,800/- towards one instalment was recovered from the petitioner's husband and before making further recovery, the workman died as stated above. In such circumstances, the entire DCRG amount of Rs.3,17,597/- was withheld and no DCRG amount was paid to the petitioner. Since the order of recovery is held to be bad, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the DCRG amount, as per Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. 22. Accordingly, the order of recovery is set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. The second respondent is directed to pay the entire DCRG amount withheld by them along with interest as per the Rules, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. He is further directed to return Rs.3,800/-, one instalment, said to be recovered from the petitioner's husband. No costs.