JUDGMENT : RAMENDRA JAIN, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 11.04.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, dismissing the O.A. filed by him (petitioner). 2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the Employees Provident Fund Organization (hereinafter referred to as “EPFO”) as Lower Division Clerk on 15.11.1974 and retired as Accounts Officer on 31.01.2012. The Central Board of Trustees of EPFO approved Manual of Accounting Procedure on 02.12.1997. There are two wings, i.e. Reconciliation Wing/Record Wing; and Settlement Wing, for settlement of claims of members. The petitioner was working as Section Supervisor in Settlement Wing of Account Section 12 on 24.01.2001, when he received claims duly processed by Jamil Khan, Social Security Assistant, for refund of Provident Fund accumulation of one Gurnam Singh member having Account No. PN/4715/1602 and one Harvinder Singh member having Account No. PN/4715/1765. Gurnam Singh member had taken advance of Rs.30,000/- from his account on 25.01.2000, which was reflected in ledger card No. 053226. The Reconciliation Wing opened duplicate ledger card No. 022501, wherein debit entry of aforesaid amount of Rs.30,000/- was not reflected. The said duplicate ledger card was forwarded to the Settlement Wing. Therefore, while paying claim to Gurnam Singh member, the said advance amount of Rs.30,000/- was overpaid to him. Vide office note dated 03.02.2011, the petitioner was intimated that the Over Payment Review Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee') in its meeting held on 13.01.2011 has decided to recover Rs.9,000/- and Rs.6,164/- from the him as his share of overpaid amount of Rs.30,000/- to Gurnam Singh member having Account No. 1602 and Rs.18,491/- to Harvinder Singh member having Account No. 1765, respectively. The Committee in its meeting held on 25.04.2014 reconsidered the case of the petitioner and concluded that officials of the Settlement Wing including the petitioner were required to link the claim with advance/payment Register before authorizing the payment, which was not done by them. Thereafter, respondent No.1 vide letter dated 26.05.2014 advised the petitioner to deposit Rs.15,164/- as per original noting dated 03.02.2011. Thereafter, respondent No.1 vide letter dated 26.05.2014 advised the petitioner to deposit Rs.15,164/- as per original noting dated 03.02.2011. Vide another letter dated 17.06.2015, while mentioning that the total excess amount of Rs.30,000/- was already recovered and interest of Rs.51,140/- was recoverable, the petitioner was asked to deposit Rs.15,342/- being his share towards interest. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid office note dated 03.02.2011 intimating the petitioner that the Committee has decided to recover a sum of Rs.15,164/- from him; order dated 26.05.2014 ordering recovery of the aforesaid amount of Rs.15,164/- from the pension of the petitioner; proceedings dated 13.01.2011 and 25.04.2014 of the Committee and the order dated 17.06.2015 asking the petitioner to deposit Rs.15,342/- towards interest, the petitioner filed OA No. 060/00914/2015 before the Tribunal, for quashing the aforesaid orders/proceedings and seeking directions to respondent No.1 to release the amount already recovered from his gratuity and also refund the amount of Rs.4,000/- recovered from him. 4. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner did not press his claim regarding recovery of Rs.6,164/- of Harvinder Singh member. While rejecting the claim of the petitioner with regard to recovery of Rs.9,000/- pertaining to Gurnam Singh member and the interest amount of Rs.15,342/- thereon, the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 11.04.2016 dismissed the aforesaid OA. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order of recovery from the pension of the petitioner on account of the alleged overpayment made to Gurnam Singh member in the year 2001 due to the negligence of others is illegal and deserves to be quashed, as before passing the order of recovery from the pension of the petitioner, no effective steps were taken to recover the same from the subscriber to whom the excess payment was made. Before passing the order of recovery, no opportunity to show cause was afforded to the petitioner. 6. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged over-payment was made to Gurnam Singh due to negligence of others is devoid of merit. In the written statement filed before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 averred that the Reconciliation Wing has to verify the claim up to the financial year for which accounts are reconciled and for the subsequent period, the Settlement Wing has to check the transactions. In the instant case, Reconciliation Wing did not reconcile the accounts for the financial year 1999-2000, during which Gurnam Singh member took advance of Rs. In the instant case, Reconciliation Wing did not reconcile the accounts for the financial year 1999-2000, during which Gurnam Singh member took advance of Rs. 30,000/-. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the officials of the Settlement Wing, including the petitioner, to check the transactions from the withdrawal/advance register, but they did not do so. In these circumstances, learned Tribunal has rightly observed that the petitioner cannot take any benefit of the fault of the Reconciliation Wing in preparing the duplicate ledger card, although original ledger card was also available, because for the fault of the Reconciliation Wing also, action has been separately recommended by the Committee. Hence, it cannot be said that there was no negligence of the petitioner. 7. The argument made on behalf of the petitioner that before passing the order of recovery from the pension of the petitioner, no effective steps were taken to recover the amount from Gurnam Singh member is also without any substance. Before passing the order dated 26.05.2014, vide separate letters dated 01.02.2007, 08.04.2008, 29.07.2008 and 12.08.2011 (Annexures R-1 to R-4), respondent No.1 asked Gurnam Singh member to deposit the excess amount with interest. However, these letters could not be delivered to Gurnam Singh member, as he was not staying at the addresses available in the records, as reported by the Area E.O. 8. The last contention of the petitioner that no opportunity to show cause was given him is also without any basis, as it has come on record before the Tribunal that before passing the order of recovery against the petitioner, the representation submitted by him against the proposed recovery was reconsidered by the Committee. Thus, the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to represent his case. 9. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 10. Dismissed.