JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. Shri Ratnakar Upadhyay, holding brief of Shri R.K. Ojha appears for the contesting-respondents. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 29.6.2001 passed by respondent No. 4 and has further prayed for direction to the respondent No. 8 not to deduct any amount from his salary. 3. It appears from the record that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Junior Engineer vide appointment letter dated 20.10.1972 and in pursuance of the said appointment letter, he joined on 28.10.1972 and since thereafter, he was discharging his duties. In the year 1987 he was transferred to District Shahjahanpur. The construction of National Highway-24 was going on at Shahjahanpur and the construction materials were kept at the site for which measurements were required to be done by the Junior Engineers and after measurement, the payments were to be made to the contractors. Shri A.K. Mishra-respondent No. 7 made measurement of 22.4 MM size stone gritt, 533.41 cubic metre and 11.2 MM size stone gritt 334.62 cubic metre and a running bill was prepared by him after entering it in the measurement book but the Resident Engineer had not checked the measurement, therefore, the same was not accepted by the contractors and the payments were not made. When the payments were not made, the agitation was made by the contractors at the site. On 15.6.1996 an office order was passed by the respondent No. 5 that all the measurement done must be entered in one Road Metal Return (RMR) and before the use of the material the same should be checked by the Junior Engineer/Resident Engineer and the receipt of the same should be given to the Junior Engineer. It was also ordered that the measurement done by Shri A.K. Mishra on 30.5.1996 may be taken in RMR of plant Junior Engineer and Resident Engineer. Shri A.K. Mishra was directed to remain at the site and give a receipt to Plant Junior Engineer after satisfaction of the consumption of the material. 4. It was also ordered that the measurement done by Shri A.K. Mishra on 30.5.1996 may be taken in RMR of plant Junior Engineer and Resident Engineer. Shri A.K. Mishra was directed to remain at the site and give a receipt to Plant Junior Engineer after satisfaction of the consumption of the material. 4. In compliance with the order of respondent No. 5, the petitioner forwarded the bill for payment after entering the quantity measured by Shri A.K. Mishra and sent a letter to respondent No. 5 on 16.6.1996 intimating him that the material measured by Sri A.K. Mishra was neither verified by him nor handed over to him. The respondent No. 6 sent a letter on 4.7.1998 to Sri A.K. Mishra asking him as to whether he had handed over the material to the petitioner and if he had handed over the same, then immediately supply the receipt and RMR of 6/96 for perusal. On 9.7.1998 again the petitioner sent another letter to respondent No. 6 that neither the material measured by Shri A.K. Mishra was verified by the petitioner nor handed over to him and receipt was obtained by him. The petitioner stated that material remained in possession of Shri A.K. Mishra and he might have entered in his documents and the petitioner had entered only those quantity which was measured by him in the documents. On the same day i.e. 9.7.1998 the Resident Engineer had written a letter to the petitioner directing him to take the material in his RMR and give corrected RMR as the petitioner had forwarded the bill for payment. On 10.7.1998 the petitioner sent a letter to Resident Engineer stating that according to the Financial Handbook the material was not legally handed over to him, therefore the same was not taken in his RMR. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application on 10.7.1998 to the respondent No. 6 for supplying necessary documents to him. The respondent No. 5 sent a letter to respondent No. 4 on 30.7.1998 for non-measurement in RMR and deficiency in RMR. The respondent No. 5 recommended Rs. 3,34,410.16 to be recovered from the petitioner. On 31.7.1998 the Resident Engineer recommended to respondent No. 5 for recovery of cost of material from the petitioner. On 16.8.1998 the petitioner requested the respondent No. 5 to supply copies of documents, which were asked for by means of letter dated 10.7.1998. The respondent No. 5 recommended Rs. 3,34,410.16 to be recovered from the petitioner. On 31.7.1998 the Resident Engineer recommended to respondent No. 5 for recovery of cost of material from the petitioner. On 16.8.1998 the petitioner requested the respondent No. 5 to supply copies of documents, which were asked for by means of letter dated 10.7.1998. The petitioner alleged that the respondent No. 5 is closely related to Shri A.K. Mishra. On 22.8.1998 the petitioner sent another letter to respondent No. 4 making specific allegations against respondent No. 5 that he is closely related with Shri A.K. Mishra. On 26.8.1998 the petitioner was supplied measurement book 19/L page No. 132-133, measurement book 14/L page 78,79,80 and running bill prepared by the petitioner. The petitioner was not supplied with RMR of 6/96 and running bill prepared by Shri A.K. Mishra. The petitioner again requested respondent No. 5 to supply the required documents. On 13.12.1999 a show-cause notice was given to the petitioner to show-cause as to why Rs. 3,34,410.16 may not be recovered from him for defalcation of Government property. The petitioner gave a detailed reply to the show-cause notice on 27.12.1999, denying the allegations levelled against him. By the impugned order dated 19.6.2001 the respondent No. 4 directed for deduction of Rs. 3,34,410.16 in 80 instalments of Rs. 4200 per month from his salary, giving rise to the writ petition. 6. On 8.10.2001 this Court entertained the writ petition and passed following order : “Advocates are agitating on the issue of creation of a Bench of the High Court in Western U.P. Petitioner has appeared in person. Admit. Issue notice. Respondents may file counter-affidavit within two months. Rejoinder-affidavit, if any, may be filed within one month of the receipt of the counter-affidavit. Stay application shall be listed immediately thereafter. Until further orders, the operation of the impugned order dated 29th June, 2001 (Annexure-16 to the writ petition) shall remain stayed only to the extent it directs recovery of the amount mentioned in the said order. It is made clear that rest of the proceedings, if any, may be continued if respondents so desire. It will be open to the respondents to frame charges, hold disciplinary enquiry and take action in accordance with law.” 7. On the strength of aforesaid interim order dated 8.10.2001, the petitioner continued in service and has retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.4.2010. It will be open to the respondents to frame charges, hold disciplinary enquiry and take action in accordance with law.” 7. On the strength of aforesaid interim order dated 8.10.2001, the petitioner continued in service and has retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.4.2010. The petitioner has not been paid retiral dues and even pension has not been fixed by the department on the ground that the writ petition is pending consideration. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite directions of Superintendent of Works and Resident Engineer and repeated request of the petitioner, Shri A.K. Mishra did not hand over the charge of the transaction material during the stay at Shahjahanpur. The petitioner is not liable for any alleged wrongful default regarding payment of money to the contractors. He submits that according to Para 447 (1) of the Financial Hand Book, it is incumbent upon the Resident Engineer to scrutinize the entries in the measurement book relating to description and quantities of work, the supplies and to issue pay orders. In the present case, the petitioner had forwarded the measurement bill and the same ought to have been verified by the Resident Engineer before payment was made.Para 203 states that all material received should be examined and counted or measured as the case may be when delivery is taken and total number of quantity received should be simultaneously entered in the register of stock receipt. Para 447 of Financial Hand Book Vol.VI states that before the bill of a contractor is prepared, the entries in the measurement book relating to the description and quantities of work or supplies should be scrutinized by the Sub Divisional Officer. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per Para 435 (a) of Financial Hand Book Vol.VI detailed measurements should be recorded only by executor, assistant executor or Assistant Engineer or by executive subordinates in charge of work to whom measurement books have been supplied for the purpose. In the present case, Shri A.K. Mishra, Junior Engineer was incharge of the work and measurement book No. 19/L was issued to him on which he had taken the measurement but the same bears two signatures one of Shri A.K. Mishra and second of Shri N.P. Mishra but sentence has been written “measurement taken by me”. In the present case, Shri A.K. Mishra, Junior Engineer was incharge of the work and measurement book No. 19/L was issued to him on which he had taken the measurement but the same bears two signatures one of Shri A.K. Mishra and second of Shri N.P. Mishra but sentence has been written “measurement taken by me”. Before signing the bill, the Sub Divisional Officer or the Assistant Engineer should compare the quantities in the bill with those records in the measurement book. In the present case, the scrutiny was not done despite the application moved by the petitioner on 16.6.1996 that the material was not handed over to him. Against the show-cause notice the petitioner submitted detailed reply, which was not considered by the authorities and without any enquiry the order of deduction was passed by the respondent No. 4, which is illegal, arbitrary and non-application of mine and is liable to be set aside. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the appointing authority of the petitioner is Chief Engineer but the impugned order has been passed by the Superintending Engineer, who is not competent to pass the order in view of notification dated 8.8.1963 issued by the Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. 11. Shri Ratnakar Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 7 submits that an agreement was entered into between M/s Bharat Constructions Company and Public Works Department by which the road materials were to be supplied by the contractors at dump site. The road materials, which were supplied by the contractor upto 30.5.1996, were measured by the respondent No. 7 and Shri N.P. Mishra by oral order passed by Shri A.K. Bansal. The measurement was made by the respondent No. 7 and Shri N.P. Mishra was not accepted by the contractor, therefore, a dispute arose. An order was passed in June, 1996 by the respondent No. 6 in which it had been stated that for a single bond for a single place Junior Engineer, Plant, should be placed there for measurement and the material, which was measured by Shri A.K. Mishra on 30.5.1996, will also be measured and verified by Junior Engineer, Plant, immediately. An order was passed in June, 1996 by the respondent No. 6 in which it had been stated that for a single bond for a single place Junior Engineer, Plant, should be placed there for measurement and the material, which was measured by Shri A.K. Mishra on 30.5.1996, will also be measured and verified by Junior Engineer, Plant, immediately. The petitioner went with Assistant Engineer, Plant on the spot and measured/verified all road materials including materials which were also measured by the respondent No. 7 on 30.5.1996 and 1st running bill was prepared by the petitioner and a certificate was also issued by the petitioner on the bill. On the above bill and certificate, the payment was made to M/s Bharat Constructions Company. After the order dated 15.6.1996, by which the petitioner was appointed for the above work, the liability of respondent No. 7 had become ended. He further submits that there is no question of entering road materials in RMR by the respondent No. 7. The material, which was measured by Shri A.K. Mishra on 30.5.1996 earlier, was again measured and verified and taken in his MB in pursuance of the order dated 15.6.1996. The respondent No. 7 is not aware of any letter, which was written on 16.6.1996 by the petitioner. 12. In the present matter, the provisions of Chapter-VIII Paras 196, 262, 203 of the Financial Hand Book Vol.VI are attracted. It has been specifically provided in Para 434 of the Financial Hand Book that payment for all works done are made on the basis of measurement recorded in the measurement books in accordance with Rules in Para 435 and as such the measurement book predominantly plays a major role for account record. On the basis of entry in the measurement book made by Mr. A.K. Mishra and same has been verified by the Resident Engineer, who had prepared the measurement book, a bill for payment to the related contractor is not fault and as such the petitioner could not be held to be responsible in this regard. As per Para 447 (1) it is incumbent upon the Resident Engineer to scrutinize the entries in the measurement book specially relating to the description and quantities of work, which were supplied in pursuance of the pay orders. As per Para 447 (1) it is incumbent upon the Resident Engineer to scrutinize the entries in the measurement book specially relating to the description and quantities of work, which were supplied in pursuance of the pay orders. In the present case, the role of the petitioner was only to forward the measurement bill and as such the same ought to have been verified by the Resident Engineer before the payment was made. Para 203 clearly states that all materials received should be examined and counted or measured as the case may be when delivery is taken and the total number or quantity received should be simultaneously entered in the register of stock receipt. It has also been averred that Para 94 of the Financial Hand Book Vol.VI the Divisional Officer is primarily disbursing officer of the division and as such, he is responsible for all transactions of the whole division. It is also incumbent upon them to maintain accounts of all transactions correctly and in accordance with rules. 13. The petitioner has also placed his reliance on Para 447, 435(a), 448, 449 of the Financial Hand Book Vol.VI and also submitted that in the present matter immediately after receiving the show-cause notice the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply but in the present case, without any proper enquiry into the matter the amount was straightway directed to be recovered from him. The impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It has also been stated that in the present matter, the Competent Authority-Appointing Authority of the petitioner is Chief Engineer but the impugned order has been passed by the Superintending Engineer, who was not competent to pass the impugned order in view of the notification dated 8.6.2003, which was issued by the Secretary, Government of UP, Public Works Department. 14. It is apparent from the record that in the present matter the principle of natural justice has been greatly violated. No opportunity was given to the petitioner before fastening the financial liability on the petitioner. It is also surprising to the Court that the matter is pending since the year 2001 and the petitioner has not been paid even pension as well as retiral benefits. 15. No opportunity was given to the petitioner before fastening the financial liability on the petitioner. It is also surprising to the Court that the matter is pending since the year 2001 and the petitioner has not been paid even pension as well as retiral benefits. 15. In A.K. Kraipak and others v. Union of India and others, (1970) 1 SCR 457 , Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. In the past it was thought that it included just two rules namely (i) no one shall be a Judge in his own cause (nemo dabet esse judex propria causa) and (ii) no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem). Very soon thereafter a third rule was envisaged and that is that quasi-judicial enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably. But in the course of years many more subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of natural justice.” (P. 468-69). 16. The object underlying the rules of natural justice “is to prevent miscarriage of justice” and secure “fair play in action.” As pointed out earlier the requirement about recording of reasons for its decision by an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions achieves this object by excluding chances of arbitrariness and ensuring a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. Keeping in view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, I am of the opinion, that the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. No doubt, the extent of their application depends upon the particular statutory framework whereunder jurisdiction has been conferred on the administrative authority. With regard to the exercise of a particular power by an administrative authority including exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions the legislature, while conferring the said power, may feel that it would not be in the larger public interest that the reasons for the order passed by the administrative authority be recorded in the order and be communicated to the aggrieved party and it may dispense with such a requirement. 17. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. 18. 17. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. 18. The writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to pay pension and entire retiral benefits to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order before them, failing which the petitioner would be entitled to receive 12% interest on the entire payment. ——————