Order: Since common issues are involved in these writ petitions, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts of the case: (i) The petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.17040 of 2012 is working as Assistant Executive Engineer (Rural Development) Sub-Division, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District from 05.12.2012. The petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.17041 of 2012 is working as Block Development Officer (Block Panchayat) Panchayat Union Office, Kadayam, Tirunelveli District from 29.06.2012. The petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.17042 of 2012 is working as Assistant Executive Engineer (Rural Development) Panchayat Union Office, Alangulam, Tirunelveli District, from 21.11.2012. (ii) The Government introduced a new State Scheme called Tamil Nadu Village Habitations Improvement Scheme [THAI] during 2011-2012 and issued guidelines for execution of works under the said scheme vide G.O.(Ms)No.100, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 02.12.2011. (iii) The Commissioner of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Chennai, vide Letter No.96669/2011/THAI, dated 28.01.2012, had also issued instructions with regard to implementation of the said scheme. As per the guidelines issued in G.O.(Ms)No.100, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 02.12.2011, 30% of the funds should be earmarked to road works in Village Panchayats. (iv) The Gramasabha of Sivalarkulam Village Panchayat passed a resolution to take up the work of improvements to the road from Tirunelveli - Tenkasi Main Road to District Sports Centre at Sivalarkulam Village. The President, Sivalarkulam Village Panchayat had sent a proposal to take up the said work under the said scheme to the Block Development Officer [Village Panchayats], Alangulam. The Block Development Officer had submitted proposal to the District Rural Development Agency, Tirunelveli, to accord permission to execute the said work at an estimated cost of Rs.10,20,000/- vide proceedings A6.5409/2011, dated 07.02.2012. The first respondent after scrutiny of the said proposal by the Executive Engineer [Rural Development] and the second respondent, had accorded administrative sanction for the said work of improvements to the road as per paragraph 9 of the guidelines [Selection of Works Scrutiny and Administrative Section] at an estimated cost of Rs.10,20,000/- and then the work had been executed after following the procedure and tender formalities. (v) During the execution of work, the second respondent inspected the work on 07.04.2012 and 19.07.2012. (v) During the execution of work, the second respondent inspected the work on 07.04.2012 and 19.07.2012. At the time of second inspection on 19.07.2012, the work has been executed upto the level of second layer WBM completed and BT to be provided and a sum of Rs.4,94,829/- had been paid to the Contractor, who had executed the work. (vi) The second respondent issued a show cause notice A1/4422/2011, dated 06.08.2012, to the petitioners calling for explanation on the ground that the selection of the work under THAI scheme is against the guidelines of the said scheme. The first respondent by proceedings A6.5409/2011, dated 15.10.2012, cancelled the said work. The petitioners submitted explanation on 09.11.2012. Without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioners, the first respondent by the impugned order, dated 10.12.2012, ordered recovery of Rs.4,94,829/- from the petitioners as detailed below: Sl.No. Name Amount 1. Thriu.R.Krishnaperumal (Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.17040 of 2012) (30%) 1,48,449 2. Tmt.S.Shunmugavalli (Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.17041 of 2012) (10%) 49,483 3. Thiru.C.M.Pakkiaraj (Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.17041 of 2012) (60%) 2,96,897 Total 4,94,829 (vii) The order of recovery has been passed without considering the explanation of the petitioners and without giving any opportunity to them. Therefore, the petitioners have come out with the present writ petitions for the relief stated supra. 3. According to the petitioners, the selection of works under THAI scheme is as per the guidelines [paragraph 9] issued in G.O.(Ms)No.100, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 02.12.2011. As per G.O.No.7, Rural Development Department, dated 06.01.2000, the Government has specified job chart in respect of Superintending Engineer, Executive Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer. According to the job chart, the Assistant Executive Engineer has no role to play with regard to selection of work in any scheme in Rural Development Department. The Recovery Order issued by the first respondent amounts to minor punishment as defined in Rule 8(v) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and a show cause notice should be issued and explanation of the concerned Officer must be considered before passing the impugned order. In the present case, no enquiry was conducted before ordering recovery. 4. The second respondent by Letter No.A1/4422/2011, dated 06.08.2012, called for explanation from the petitioners and the petitioners submitted their explanation on 09.11.2012. The impugned recovery order was issued without considering the said explanation. In the present case, no enquiry was conducted before ordering recovery. 4. The second respondent by Letter No.A1/4422/2011, dated 06.08.2012, called for explanation from the petitioners and the petitioners submitted their explanation on 09.11.2012. The impugned recovery order was issued without considering the said explanation. The selection of work under THAI scheme is as per the guidelines contained in G.O.(Ms)No.100, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 02.12.2011. The proposal was considered in detail by the second respondent and the Executive Engineer [R.D.]. The first respondent also scrutinised the proposal and gave administrative sanction. Therefore, the order of cancellation of the work, dated 15.10.2012 and the impugned recovery order, dated 10.12.2012 are against the principles of violation of natural justice. 5. After cancellation of the work, the Village Panchayat passed a resolution requesting the first respondent to give permission for treating the work done as "Village Panchayat Work" and to pay the amount of Rs.4,94,829/- from the funds of Village Panchayat to THAI scheme. 6. The second respondent has filed a common counter affidavit, denying the various averments made by the petitioners. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the selection of work is contrary to the guidelines issued in Guideline No.6(i)(Roads)(iii)(Link Roads) and the selection of laying the works can be done only for link roads. In the present case, the selection of the road is improper as it approaches the District Sports Centre only. As per guidelines, the proposal for the work must be finalised by a Committee consisting of Village Panchayat President concerned; Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat); and the Assistant Engineer (RD)/Block Engineer of the concerned Block. 7. After finalisation of the work by the Committee, the work selected should be approved by a Special Gramasabha to be convened for this purpose. After approval of Gramasabha, it should be sent to the second respondent duly signed by the concerned Village Panchayat President, Block Development Officer (Village Panchayats) and the Assistant Engineer-Block Engineer. After approval, it must be sent to the first respondent, who after scrutinise the same, shall accord administrative sanction. On 07.04.2012, the second respondent inspected the work and found out that the selection of work was wrong and therefore, issued stop work order. In spite of the same, the work continued till 19.07.2012. Again, the second respondent inspected on 19.07.2012 and issued stop work notice. On 07.04.2012, the second respondent inspected the work and found out that the selection of work was wrong and therefore, issued stop work order. In spite of the same, the work continued till 19.07.2012. Again, the second respondent inspected on 19.07.2012 and issued stop work notice. Subsequently, the second respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 06.08.2012, calling for explanation from the petitioners within seven days from the date of show cause notice. The petitioners did not submit explanation within the time limit. Subsequently, the explanation submitted by the petitioners were considered and then only the impugned order of recovery was passed. Therefore, the impugned order is valid and legal and prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. 8. The petitioners filed reply affidavit denying the various averments made by the second respondent in the counter affidavit. According to the petitioners, the selection of the project is proper as per the guidelines 3(1) and 3(2) and 6(iii) (link works) issued in G.O.(Ms)No.100, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 02.12.2011. The project was approved by the Gramasabha. After scrutiny only, the respondents approved the project. The Executive Engineer only has power to accord sanction for the work involving a cost of more than Rs.5,00,000/-. The Executive Engineer, after scrutiny only, granted technical sanction. Further, the Village Panchayat has passed a resolution to take the work under Village Panchayat Fund and sought permission to pay a sum of Rs.4,94,829/- from the Panchayat fund to THAI scheme fund. Therefore, there will be no loss to the Government. 9. For the reasons stated above, they prayed for quashing the impugned order and to allow the writ petitions. 10. I have perused the materials on record and heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the arguments put forth by them. 11. The issue involved in these writ petitions is whether the selection of the project is proper under THAI scheme. According to the petitioners, the same is proper as per guidelines issued in G.O.(Ms)No.100, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 02.12.2011. According to the respondents, the proposal for the roads must be completed with condition as per guidelines 6(1) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Village Habitations Improvement (THAI) Scheme. The said guidelines read as under: "6(1)(iii) Link Roads: 1. According to the petitioners, the same is proper as per guidelines issued in G.O.(Ms)No.100, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 02.12.2011. According to the respondents, the proposal for the roads must be completed with condition as per guidelines 6(1) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Village Habitations Improvement (THAI) Scheme. The said guidelines read as under: "6(1)(iii) Link Roads: 1. Priority must be given to Link roads that are (i) Bus plying roads (ii) Upgradation of WBM Roads to BT (iii) Roads that connect two or more habitations of the same village panchayat (iv) Upgradation of Earthen/Gravel and WBM roads to BT standard may be taken up. 2. Since ample scope is available under MGNREGS, no new formation of roads should be taken up under this scheme. However, an earthen road formed under MGNREGS can be improved to BT standard under the scheme." 12. The issue in all the writ petitions is whether the petitioners are responsible for selecting the project contrary to the guidelines issued in G.O.(Ms)No.100, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 02.12.2011 and whether they are liable to refund the amounts spent for the project. 13. From the materials on record, it is seen that as per paragraph 9 of the guidelines, a project can be implemented, if only after the same is approved by the Gramasabha and administrative sanction is granted by the respondents herein. A proposal for the project has to be prepared by a Committee consisting of Village Panchayat President concerned; Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat); and the Assistant Engineer (RD)/Block Engineer of the concerned Block. After formulating the proposal, the same has to be placed before the Gramasabha for approval. In the present case, the petitioner in W.P.(MD) Nos.17041 and 17042 of 2012 were members of the Committee along with the President of the Village Panchayat. The proposal was placed before the Gramasabha. The Gramasabha has to approve the same and it was sent to the respondents 1 and 2. The respondents 1 and 2 after consideration of the project, granted administrative sanction. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners are responsible for selection of the work. Further, the second respondent has stated that on 07.04.2012 when the first inspection was made, stop work order was issued. The respondents have not substantiated the same by any acceptable material. The respondents 1 and 2 after consideration of the project, granted administrative sanction. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners are responsible for selection of the work. Further, the second respondent has stated that on 07.04.2012 when the first inspection was made, stop work order was issued. The respondents have not substantiated the same by any acceptable material. The petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.17040 of 2012 did not have any role to play in the selection of the project. Even after technical sanction, only Executive Engineer has power to grant sanction for a project, if cost is more than Rs.5,00,000/-. 14. In view of the fact that the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.17040 of 2012 did not have any role to play in the selection and proposal of Committee, in which the petitioner in W.P.(MD) Nos.17041 and 17042 of 2012 were members, which proposal was approved by the Gramasabha and the respondents, the petitioners cannot be held responsible for the loss to the Government. The second respondent has stated that the explanations submitted by the petitioners were considered and then only, the impugned order of recovery was passed. In the impugned order, there is no reference to the explanation submitted by the petitioners and there is nothing in the impugned order to show that the explanation submitted by the petitioners were considered by the respondents. 15. It is pertinent to note that the Village Panchayat has passed a resolution for treating the improvement of the road in question as Panchayat Project and permission from the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs.4,94,829/- from the Village Panchayat Fund to THAI scheme. 16. For the above reasons, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. 17. In the result, the impugned order dated 10.12.2012 passed by the first respondent is set aside. The writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.