JUDGMENT Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. The petitioner, who has been Pradhan of Village Nanhe, Development Block Tanidiyawan, district Hardoi, has instituted these proceedings assailing the order dated 17.8.2016 passed by the Programme Officer, MANREGA/Block Development Officer, Tanidiyawan, district Hardoi, whereby a recovery of a sum of Rs.1,06,540/- has been ordered to be made from the petitioner for her alleged involvement in the irregularities committed, while levelling the traditional pond situated in the village. By the said order, the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.53,270/- through a Bank Draft in favour of the District Programme Officer, Hardoi. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 21.7.2016 passed by the Ombudsman, MANREGA, Hardoi pursuant to which the order dated 17.8.2016 has been passed by the Programme Officer, MANREGA/Block Development Officer, Tanidiyawan, district Hardoi. From a perusal of the order passed by the Ombudsman, it does not transpire that the petitioner was given any opportunity of hearing or she was confronted with the complaint made by the complainant Sri Pravesh Kumar, S/o Shiv Dayal. The Programme Officer, MANREGA/Block Development Officer, Tanidiyawan, district Hardoi while passing the order dated 17.8.2016 has also not given any opportunity to the petitioner either of hearing or of making any representation to the charges levelled against her or the irregularities allegedly committed by her. This fact has been asserted in an unambiguous term by the petitioner in paragraph - 9 of the writ petition. The assertions made by the petitioner in respect of no opportunity having been provided before passing the impugned orders are clearly established from a perusal of the order passed by the Block Development Officer as also by the Ombudsman, MANREGA, Hardoi. Recovery of any amount from a person has a serious consequence and in ordinary course of things, it would have been incumbent upon the authority concerned to have provided an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing any such order and if the officer concerned has not given any opportunity, the same would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. Having regard to the over all facts and circumstances of the case and also having perused the impugned orders, we are convinced that the impugned action of the respondents in passing the orders of recovery against the petitioner is not sustainable being in violation of the principles of natural justice. Any action taken by the administrative authorities which is taken by not observing the principles of natural justice is nothing but manifestation of unlawful exercise of power. In view of the above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed which is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 17.08.2016 passed by the Programme Officer, MANREGA/Block Development Officer, Tanidiyawan, district Hardoi and the order dated 21.07.2016 passed by the Lokpal, MANREGA, Hardoi are contained in Annexure Nos.1 & 2 respectively to the writ petition, so far as they relate to the petitioner alone are hereby quashed. However, it will be open to the authorities concerned to take appropriate action, which may be permissible under law.