JUDGMENT : 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The petitioner voluntarily resigned from service under the Central Reserve Police Force and the resignation was accepted on 07.04.2012. Accordingly, the name of the petitioner was also struck off from the strength of the Unit with effect from 08.04.2012, as per the Office Order dated 07.04.2012. Subsequently, on 01.07.2014, the petitioner was asked to remit an amount of Rs. 1,12,557/- which was not recovered from him in terms of Rule 17 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. The petitioner made representation against it as per the decision of this Court delivered on 08.08.2017 in Writ Petition No. 950 of 2016 and the same is rejected by an order dated 13.11.2017, which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. 3. The question involved is whether in terms of Rule 17A of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, the respondents can now enforce the recovery of an amount of Rs.1,12,557/- against the petitioner. Rule 17A of the said Rules is reproduced below. “17A. Recoveries on resignation and discharge A member of the Force seeking resignation under rule 16 or discharge under rule 17 from service shall be required to refund to the Government a sum equal to three months pay and allowances received by him or her prior to the resignation or discharge, as the case may be, or the costs of training imparted to him or her in the Force, whichever is higher. Provided that in case of a member of the Force seeking discharge from service under rule 17 within the period of three months from the date of enrollment, the sum equal to three months pay and allowances shall be calculated with reference to three months pay and allowances which would have been received but for discharge. Provided further that a member of the Force tendering resignation or seeking discharge from service for accepting a job under the Central or State Government or local bodies, after having been granted cadre clearance for the same, shall not be required to refund the sum as provided herein above.” 4. Probably at the time of discharging the petitioner from the service of Central Reserve Police Force, the impression was that the petitioner secured employment in BHEL under the Central or State Government or the local body. Probably at the time of discharging the petitioner from the service of Central Reserve Police Force, the impression was that the petitioner secured employment in BHEL under the Central or State Government or the local body. Hence, without any such insistence in terms of second proviso below Rule 17A, the petitioner was issued discharge certificate under Rule 18. After lapse of about two years, the petitioner is called upon to remit the amount equivalent to three months pay and allowances received by him prior to his resignation or discharge from the employment of Central Reserve Police Force. 5. We are of the view that the power under the second proviso below Rule 17A above, should have been exercised before issuance of the certificate of discharge and striking out the name of the petitioner from the enrollment of Central Reserve Police Force as an employee. Once a discharge certificate is issued, power cannot be exercised unless it is shown that the discharge certificate was obtained by way of misrepresentation. The petitioner was not at fault. Be that as it may, such a recovery can only be made by instituting a civil suit and neither the present employer can be directed to remit the amount after deducting it from the salary of the petitioner, nor any other coercive steps are permitted to be taken for such recovery against the petitioner under the law. The period of three years has also expired for institution of a suit for recovery. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon two decisions of the Apex Court, one in the case of Union of India and another vrs. Narendra Singh reported in (2008) 2 SCC 750 , and another in the case of Union Territory, Chandigarh and ors vrs. Gurcharan Singh and another reported in (2014) 13 SCC 598, for the proposition that the rectification of mistake can always be done. 7. We have no quarrel about the proposition laid down in the above cited decisions, but we are of the view that the rectification has to be done within a stipulated period and by way of the means which can be legally enforced. We have already taken a view that the power under Rule 17A of the said Rules could have been exercised before the order of discharge was issued to the petitioner. We have already taken a view that the power under Rule 17A of the said Rules could have been exercised before the order of discharge was issued to the petitioner. In our view, therefore, the decisions of the Apex Court relied upon by Shri Bramhe, the learned counsel for the petitioner are not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. 8. In view of above, the order of recovery cannot be sustained. The same will have to be quashed and set aside. 9. In the result, writ petition is allowed. The order dated 13.11.2017 passed by the Respondent No. 5 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to cost.