ORDER : 1. The petitioner, who was entrusted a transportation work vide agreement dated 25.03.2011 and accordingly, a work order has been issued to him vide memo dated 30.03.2011, has sought quashing of order dated 02.12.2013 communicated to the petitioner vide memo no. 1120 dated 07.12.2013, whereunder the respondents have sought recovery of the amount paid for “Door Step Delivery” within ten days. 2. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is based upon the enquiry conducted by the Additional Collector, Giridih in which no opportunity or show cause was given to the petitioner to satisfy that he is not responsible or liable for any such irregularity in the supply of PDS food-grains. It is submitted that the impugned order is wholly in violation of principle of natural justice. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the order impugned has been issued on the basis of enquiry report of the Additional Collector, Giridih which affirmed the irregularities in “Door Step Delivery” of PDS food-grains for the financial year 2011-12. 4. It is not in dispute that no show-cause was given to the petitioner. Nor a copy of a notice has been brought on record in the counter affidavit. The assertion of the petitioner that he has not been given an opportunity to respond to allegation of the financial irregularities detected in the enquiry report in relation to misappropriation of Government money, has not been disputed by the respondents. In the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the impugned order of recovery from the petitioner is in violation of principle of natural justice. In Canara Bank & Others vs. Debasis Das & Others, (2003) 4 SCC 557 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus:- “14. The expressions “natural justice” and “legal justice” do not present a watertight classification. It is the substance of justice which is to be secured by both, and whenever legal justice fails to achieve this solemn purpose, natural justice is called in aid of legal justice. Natural justice relieves legal justice from unnecessary technicality, grammatical pedantry or logical prevarication. It supplies the omissions of a formulated law. As Lord Buckmaster said, no form or procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigant’s defence. 15. Natural justice relieves legal justice from unnecessary technicality, grammatical pedantry or logical prevarication. It supplies the omissions of a formulated law. As Lord Buckmaster said, no form or procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigant’s defence. 15. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled.” 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order dated 07.12.2013 bearing memo no. 1120 cannot be sustained in law as it is in violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, impugned order is quashed. 6. The respondents authorities are at liberty to take a fresh decision after due service of notice and an opportunity to the petitioner on the aforesaid issue, in accordance with law. 7. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.