ORDER The petitioner was in the cadre of Deputy Manager in the Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation [for short Corporation]. He has attained age of superannuation and retired from service on 30.09.2010. 2. On 18.01.2011 respondent corporation ordered for recovery of Rs.2,46,130/from the petitioner’s terminal benefits with reference to shortage of storage materials when the petitioner was working at Mandya during the period January 1999 and May to July 1999, vide Annexure A. 3. The petitioner requested the corporation to release withheld amount on 27.3.2011. In pursuance of the same the Respondent Corporation requested the Food Corporation of India to set right the anamoly of storage shortage on 3.6.2011. Even the petitioner requested the Food Corporation of India to set right the alleged shortage of storage materials on 13.06.2011 and 10.8.2011. Further respondent –Corporation wrote one more letter to the Food Corporation of India to regularize the anamoly of storage materials on 10.8.2011. Followed by some more communications by the Corporation to the Food Corporation of India vide communications dated 19.08.2011, 30.08.2011, 04.11.2011 & 9.11.2011. Despite these factual aspects the Respondent corporation ordered for recovery of alleged loss of storage materials from the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of recovery presented the above petition. 4. The petitioner contended that he is governed by the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (for short “The KCSR”) and order of recovery of any loss to the Corporation is without notice and so also without enquiry. He has also contended on merits of the matter like storage loss occurred beyond the control of Warehouseman. It was further contended that storage loss occurred due to natural causes like mode of weighing and fluctuations in atmospheric humidity. Therefore the alleged allegation do not relate to misconduct or any negligent act or omission on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner also urged that the alleged incident relates back to 1999 and he has retired from service on 30.09.2010 and till this day no notice and enquiry has been conducted in respect of alleged loss to the Corporation. Therefore the impugned action is highly belated one. Further it is pointed out that under Rule 214 (2) (b) of the KCSRs there is a bar to initiate disciplinary proceedings if the alleged incident relates back to 4 years old. Therefore the impugned action is highly belated one. Further it is pointed out that under Rule 214 (2) (b) of the KCSRs there is a bar to initiate disciplinary proceedings if the alleged incident relates back to 4 years old. The over all submission of the petitioner is that the manner in which the proceeding was conducted i.e., issuance of the impugned order was violative of principles of natural justice and caused serious prejudice to him. The petitioner in support of the petition cited decision of this court wherein the petition is allowed while quashing the order of recovery on the ground of no notice and enquiry. [W.P. No.61 of 2013 (SRes) –Sri.B.K.Shivarame Gowda v. Karnataka State Ware Housing Corporation]. 5. The Respondent corporation filed statement of objection to the aforesaid petition in which it was contended that despite several notices to the petitioner about shortage of storage materials, he has not furnished explanations with necessary material aspects. Further alleged on merits of the case also. The respondent –corporation has not disputed about the writing of letters to the Food Corporation of India for reconciliation of storage materials or to write off sanction and to release the recovered amount. It was admitted that no enquiry has been held and expressed that departmental enquiry would be conducted as per rules. Further it is stated that petitioner has been informed that the amount so recovered by the Food Corporation of India would be deducted from his salary and other terminal benefits. For such proposal the petitioner did not answer, which indicates that the petitioner has accepted the order of the Respondent Corporation. 6. The petitioner’s counsel vehemently argued that the Corporation in support of the impugned action has not produced any material. Even assuming the statement of the Corporation is true, the impugned action of withholding of Rs.2,46,130/as loss caused by the petitioner cannot be ordered in the absence of proving the same in a departmental enquiry. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to some of the provisions of KCSRs. The relevant provisions are Rule 214 and 215A of KCSRs. Extract of the said rules are reproduced herein: “214. (1)(a) Withholding or withdrawing pension for misconduct or negligence. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to some of the provisions of KCSRs. The relevant provisions are Rule 214 and 215A of KCSRs. Extract of the said rules are reproduced herein: “214. (1)(a) Withholding or withdrawing pension for misconduct or negligence. The Government reserve to themselves the right of either withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof, either permanently or for a specified period, if in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including the service under a foreign employer and the service rendered upon reemployment after retirement. (b) Recovery of pecuniary loss from pension. The Government reserve to themselves the right of ordering recovery from a pension, the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government or to a foreign employer under whom the Government servant has worked on deputation or otherwise along with interest at eight percent per annum from the date of occurrence of pecuniary loss to Government. If in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave negligence during the period of his service, including the service rendered upon reemployment after retirement: Provided that the Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed: Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of pension shall not be reduced below the amount of minimum pension prescribed under the rules. (2)(a) The departmental proceedings referred to in subrule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his reemployment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service: Provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority other than Government, that authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the Government. (b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his reemployment. (b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his reemployment. (3) No judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his reemployment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or in respect of an event which took place, more than four years before such institution. (4) In the case of a Government servant who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under sub rule (2), a provisional pension as provided in Rule 214A shall be sanctioned. (5) Where the Government decided not to withhold or withdraw pension but orders recovery of pecuniary loss from pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one third of the pension admissible on the date of retirement of a Government servant. (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government; (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service. (6) For the purpose of this rule. (a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted. (i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognisance is made; and (ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date the plaint is presented in the Court.” “215A. (i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognisance is made; and (ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date the plaint is presented in the Court.” “215A. Notwithstanding the pension rules applicable to a Government servant, it is permissible to make recovery of Government dues and any pecuniary loss found to have been caused to Government in any departmental or judicial proceedings instituted against such Government servant under Rule 214 along with interest at eight percent per annum from the date of occurrence of pecuniary loss to Government or from the date on which the Government dues actually fall due, as the case may be from the death cum retirement gratuity or any other gratuity payable to a Government servant without obtaining his consent and when the Government servant is dead without obtaining the consent of the members of his family. [Note. Where Government dues or the amount of any pecuniary loss assessed against a retired Government servant under Rule 214, is recoverable under the above rule from the death cum retirement gratuity or any other gratuity payable to him, the pension sanctioning authority may order and draw the death cum retirement gratuity to the extent of Government dues pending recovery and remit the amount so drawn to the proper head of account by debit to the Head of account under which death cum retirement gratuity would have been debited in the normal course, even though the retired Government servant or in the event of his death, the person eligible to claim to death cum retirement gratuity or any other gratuity does not prefer his claim.]” 7. From reading of the aforesaid provision it is crystal clear that it is mandatory to hold a departmental enquiry before recovery of any loss to the Government / state functionaries If recovery is to be made under Rule 215A of the KCSRs, that amount ought to have been determined in a departmental enquiry. Admittedly, no departmental inquiry was held against the petitioner and the alleged loss amount is not the amount determined in a departmental inquiry. Consequently, I have to hold that withholding of amount was not justified. Admittedly, no departmental inquiry was held against the petitioner and the alleged loss amount is not the amount determined in a departmental inquiry. Consequently, I have to hold that withholding of amount was not justified. Moreover no departmental inquiry can be initiated now since the applicant retired more than 4 years back since Rule 214 of the KCSRs specifically bars initiation of any departmental or judicial proceedings against retired persons in respect of dues from him four years after the events. 8. In view of the factual aspects of the matter and legal position the impugned order No.KaRaUNi/Aadalitha3/11640/201011 dated 1801.2011 vide Annexure A issued by the Respondent – corporation is set aside and the Respondent corporation is directed to release the withheld amount of Rs.2,46,130/along with 8% interest to the petitioner. 9. The petition is allowed with cost of Rs.1000/as there is negligence and lapses on the part of the corporation in not initiating disciplinary proceedings in time as provided in the KCSRs against the petitioner.