JUDGMENT Hon’ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.—We have heard Sri Radhey Krishna Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. Pleadings are exchanged and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the admission stage itself. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.2.2011 passed by U.P. State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 626 of 2008, order dated 14.10.2011 passed in Revivew Petition No. 12 of 2011 and the petitioner has also challenged the order dated 26.12.2007 passed by Principal Secretary, U.P. P.W.D., Lucknow by which recovery of Rs. 86,550/- was directed from his post retiral benefits. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 26.12.2007, the petitioner has preferred Claim Petition No. 626 of 2008, which was dismissed by order dated 15.2.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed Review Application No. 12 of 2011 in Claim Petition No. 626 of 2008, which was also dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 14.10.2011. Hence the present writ petition. 4. While assailing the aforesaid orders, learned counsel for the petitioner has basically pressed five grounds. First argument of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the charge-sheet itself is vague as from the perusal of the same, no charge is made out against him and further at the time of incident, he was not posted at there. The second argument of learned counsel for the petitioner was that enquiry report as well as all impugned orders based on only one document i.e. letter dated 16.10.1999 written by Nanhe Lal, the then Assistant Engineer. The said letter was neither discussed in the charge-sheet nor it was mentioned in the list of document referred in the charge-sheet. Therefore, the same could not be taken into account while preparing the enquiry report and passing impugned order. The third argument was that whole proceeding was based on hypothetical ground and neither disciplinary authority nor Tribunal came to concrete conclusion and all findings are based on presumption without considering the representation of petitioner dated 15.12.2006. Therefore, the same could not be taken into account while preparing the enquiry report and passing impugned order. The third argument was that whole proceeding was based on hypothetical ground and neither disciplinary authority nor Tribunal came to concrete conclusion and all findings are based on presumption without considering the representation of petitioner dated 15.12.2006. The fourth submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that by the perusal of the documents as well as report submitted by different authorities from time to time, this fact is very much clear that no financial loss is caused to the State Exchequer and, therefore, no recovery can be made. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the enquiry report, petitioner was found guilty of loss of Rs. 5.77 lakh, but recovery was directed for only 15% of Rs. 5.77 lacs i.e. Rs. 86,550/- and no basis for ascertaining the loss was given, therefore, impugned order as well as decision of Tribunal suffers from non application of mind and is liable to be quashed. 5. In reply to the argument made by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel has denied the same and stated that enquiry report, order of disciplinary authority as well as order of learned Tribunal is strictly in accordance with law and each and every facts as well as legal issues raised by the petitioner have been considered and accordingly the orders have been passed, therefore, there is no illegality in the orders challenged in present writ petition. 6. The petitioner has also filed the rejoinder-affidavit mentioning the aforesaid facts. The petitioner has also filed a supplementary-affidavit bringing on record the copy of review petition filed by him before Tribunalas, as it was not the part of the writ petition. 7. We have considered the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records. 8. The facts of this case, in brief, are that the petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer, Prantiya Khand, Lok Nirman Vibhag, Gyanpur, district Sant Ravidas Nagar in between 8.7.1999 to 11.12.2000. He was charge-sheeted on 4.1.2006 due to negligence and causing a loss of Rs. 5.77 lakh to the Government. Further, a disciplinary proceeding under Rule 7 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 was initiated against him vide order dated 18.2.05 appointing Chief Engineer, P.W.D. Varanasi as enquiry officer. He was charge-sheeted on 4.1.2006 due to negligence and causing a loss of Rs. 5.77 lakh to the Government. Further, a disciplinary proceeding under Rule 7 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 was initiated against him vide order dated 18.2.05 appointing Chief Engineer, P.W.D. Varanasi as enquiry officer. Persuant thereto a charge-sheet containing one charge was issued to the petitioner on 4.1.06. The petitioner submitted his reply on 20.1.2006 to the charge-sheet denying the charges levelled against him. During the pendency of disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner retired from service on 31.1.2006. However vide order dated 12.9.07 issued under Regulation 351A, the enquiry proceeding was continued against the petitioner under Regulation 351 A of Civil Service Regulation (C.S.R.). In the enquiry, the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved and he was given copy of enquiry report dated 25.8.2006 alongwith letter dated 1.12.2006. The petitioner thereafter has submitted his representation on 15.12.2006. After going through the enquiry report and the petitioner’s representation, disciplinary authority has passed the order of punishment dated 26.12.2007. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel had not annexed the copy of claim petition, counter reply and rejoinder filed in Tribunal alongwith writ petition, but the facts of the claim petition is mentioned in the order of learned Tribunal, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being taken up for final disposal. 10. Charge-sheet dated 4.1.2006 is also annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 2 containing only one charge. 10. Charge-sheet dated 4.1.2006 is also annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 2 containing only one charge. To appreciate the correctness of charge-sheet, it is being quoted herein below; ^^----------------lsok esa] Jh frys'oj ukFk vf/k'kklh vfHk;ark] izkUrh; [k.M] yksŒfuŒfoŒ] Qrsgx<+A vki fnukad 08-07-1999 ls fnukad 11-12-2000 rd izkUrh; [k.M] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx Kkuiqj lŒjŒuŒ Hknksgh esa vf/k'kklh vfHk;ark ds in ij dk;Zjr Fks] ml vof/k esa vki }kjk Hknksgh {ks= esa vEcsMdj xzke vgeniqj Qqyofj;k lEidZ ekxZ dk lajs[k.k tc chMk }kjk vf/kxzfgr Hkwfe esa vk jgk Fkk] rks mlh le; Iyku esa ekxZ dk lajs[k.k u fd;s tkus] Ø; dh x;h lkexzh dks vU;= gLrkarfjr u fd;s tkus] mDr lkexzh dks chMk ds vf/kdkfj;ksa dks fof/kor gLrxr u djkus ls gqbZ :i;s 5-77 yk[k dh 'kkldh; {kfr fd;s tkus ds dkj.k vkidks fuEuor vkjksfir fd;k tkrk gS %& vkjksi la[;k 1 & vEcsMdj ;kstuk esa o"kZ 97&98 esa okjk.klh Hknksgh ekxZ ls vgeniqj Qqyofj;k ekxZ yEckbZ 2 fdehŒ dh Lohd`fr gqbZ Fkh ftldk fuek.kZ dk;Z vki }kjk izkjaHk djk;k x;kA Hknksgh vkS|ksfxd fodkl izkf/kdj.k ds i= la[;k chMk@fof/k&pkj ¼175½@95@1470 fnukad 08-11-98 o i= la[;k chMk@fof/k&pkj ¼175½@98@1516 fnukad 13-11-98 }kjk foHkkx dks dk;Z jksdus dks dgk x;kA ftykf/kdkjh ds fujh{k.k fnukad 26-11-98 ds Øe esa eq[; dk;Zikyd vf/kdkjh izkf/kdj.k Hknksgh us vius i= la[;k chMk@fof/k&pkj ¼175½@98@1606 fnukad 10-12-98 }kjk ekxZ fuekZ.k gsrq yh x;h lkexzh dks fuèkkZfjr nj ij chMk ls Hkqxrku izkIr dj LFkkukUrj.k ds fy, dgk x;k] ijUrq Ø; dh x;h lkexzh dks u rks chMk ls Hkqxrku izkIr dj gLrxr djk;k x;k vkSj u gh vU;= LFkkukUrfjr djk;k x;k] ftlls 'kklu dks dqy :i;k 5-77 yk[k dh {kfr gqbZA mDr ekxZ ds fuekZ.k gsrq fdehŒ 01-00 esa 45&63 ,eŒ,eŒ lkbt iRFkj 395-90 ?ku ehVj o 25&50 ,eŒ,eŒ lkbt iRFkj 311-30 ?ku ehVj rFkk fdehŒ 02-00 esa 45&63 ,eŒ,eŒ lkbt iRFkj 394-80 ?ku ehVj o 25&50 ,eŒ,eŒ lkbt iRFkj 303&15 ?ku ehVj vkiwfrZ yh x;h FkhA chMk us izHkkfor Hkwfe dk vf/kxzg.k dj fnukad 30-10-98 dks Hkwfe dk dCtk izkIr dj fy;kA vkids dk;Zdky esa egkys[kkdkj] bykgkckn }kjk fnukad 03-02-2000 ls fnukad 16-02-2000 rd [k.Mh; dk;kZy; dh vkfMr fd;k x;k rFkk ;g izdj.k vkids le{k vk;k rFkk blls lEcfU/kr vkfMV iSjk vf/k'kklh vfHk;ark] izkŒ[kŒ yksŒfuŒfoŒ lUr dchj uxj ds i=kad 1441@1,@2000 fnukad 12-09-2000 }kjk [k.M esa izkIr gqvkA fQj Hkh mDr 'kkldh; {kfr dks vkius cpkus dk dksbZ iz;kl ugha fd;kA vr% vki :i;s 05-77 yk[k dh 'kkldh; {kfr dj rFkk jktdh; vkpj.k fu;ekoyh 1956 ds fu;e 3 ¼1½ o 3 ¼2½ dk mYya?ku dj dnkpkj ds nks"kh ik;s x;s gSaA mDr vkjksi dh iqf"V esa fuEu vfHkys[k layXu gSa %& ¼1½ foRrh; o"kZ 1998&99 esa vgeniqj Qqyofj;k ekxZ ij djk;s x;s dk;ksZ dk O;; fooj.k ckÅpj la[;k 26]43]84]90]124 rFkk o [k.Mh; ys[kkf/kdkjh }kjk izLrqr :i;s 5-77 yk[k ds O;; dk C;ksjkA ¼2½ eq[; dk;Zikyd vf/kdkjh Hknksgh vkS|ksfxd fodkl izkf/kdj.k dk i= la[;k chMk@ fof/k&pkj ¼175½@95@1470 fnukad 08-11-98 ,oa i=kad chMk@fof/k&pkj ¼175½@98@1516 fnukad 13-11-98 ,oa i= la[;k chMk@fof/k&pkj ¼175½@98@1606 fnukad 10-12-98A ¼3½ vf/k'kklh vfHk;ark lar dchj uxj dk i=kad 1441@1,@2000 fnuakd 12-09-2000A ¼4½ jktdh; vkpj.k fu;ekoyh fu;e 3 ¼1½ o 3 ¼2½ dk m)j.kA vki ls vis{kk dh tkrh gS fd vki mijksDr vkjksi ij viuk fyf[kr Li"Vhdj.k v/kksgLrk{kjh dks bl i= izkfIr ds 15 fnu ds vUnj vo'; izLrqr djasA vkils ;g Hkh vis{kk dh tkrh gS vki v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZ dks fyf[kr :i ls ;g Hkh lwfpr djsa fd vki O;fDrxr :i ls lquokbZ pkgrs gSa] vkSj ;fn vki fdlh lk{kh dh ijh{kk ;k izfr ijh{kk djkuk pkgrs gSa rks vki vius fyf[kr Li"Vhdj.k ds lkFk xokgksa ds uke o inksa ,oa mudh xokgh dk laf{kIr fooj.k tks vki izR;sd lk{kh ls vis{kk djrs gksa Hkh nsaA vkidks lpsr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn vki fu/kkZfjr vof/k ds vUnj viuk fyf[kr Li"Vhdj.k ugha izLrqr djrs gSa rks ;g le>k tk;sxk fd vkidks vius cpko esa dqN ugha dguk gS vkSj vkjksi vkidks Lohdkj gS] rn~uqlkj izdj.k esa fu.kZ; ys fy;k tk;sxkA** 11. This fact is undisputed that the petitioner was posted at Bhadohi only from 8.7.1999 to 10.12.2000 and in the charge-sheet, letters referred are dated 8.11.1998, 23.11.1998, 10.12.1998 and further there is reference of one more dated i.e. 30.10.1998 and all the dates are prior to the joining of the petitioner at Bhadohi. There is only one reference of order dated 16.2.2000 in the charge-sheet and only after that as per the petitioner, he came to the knowledge of dispute in question. Therefore, it is absolutely clear that all dates and events mentioned in the charge-sheet are much prior to the joining of the petitioner and no charge is made out by the perusal of charge-sheet. 12. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar, (2009) 12 SCC 78 , has clearly held that no enquiry can be sustained on a vague charge. For ready reference, para 35 is being quoted herein below; ‘’In view of the above, law can be summarized that an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges. No enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. Enquiry has to be conducted fairly, objectively and not subjectively. Finding should not be perverse or unreasonable, nor the same should be based on conjunctures and surmises. There is a distinction in proof and suspicion. Every act or omission on the part of the delinquent cannot be a misconduct The authority must record reasons for arriving at the finding of fact in the context of the statute defining the misconduct.” 13. This judgement is also again followed and affirmed by the Apex Court in the matter of Anant R. Kulkarni v. Y.P. Education Society and others, 2013(2) ESC 383 (SC). This High Court in Special Appeal No. 280 of 2004 (Sri Tej Singh v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 28.3.2018 has also considered the issue of vague charge-sheet and finally quash the order of punishment of dismissal and allowed the special appeal. 14. This High Court in Special Appeal No. 280 of 2004 (Sri Tej Singh v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 28.3.2018 has also considered the issue of vague charge-sheet and finally quash the order of punishment of dismissal and allowed the special appeal. 14. Therefore, in light of decision of Apex Court as well as of this Court and facts mentioned herein above, it is absolutely clear that the charge-sheet is vague and does not establish any charge, therefore, no enquiry can be proceeded on the basis of that. 15. With reference to the documents on which reliance can be placed during the enquiry proceeding is also subject-matter of different cases before the Apex Court. The Apex Court in the matter of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police and others, (1999) 2 SCC 10 , has held that no such document may be considered for taking decision which is not mentioned in charge-sheet. For ready reference, para 39 is being quoted herein below; “From the findings recorded separately by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, it would appear that there is a voucher indicating payment of Rs. 1000/- to Rajpal Singh, one of the labourers, on 8th of February, 1990. This document was not mentioned in the charge-sheet in which only two documents were proposed to be relied upon against the appellant, namely, copy of the report of S.H.O., Lajpat Nagar dated 5th of March, 1990 against the appellant and the copy of the labourers’ statement. This document has, therefore, to be excluded from consideration as it could not have been relied upon or even referred to by the Dy. Commissioner of Police. Moreover, according to the charge framed against the appellant, payment was made on 22.2.90 and not on 8.2.90 as indicated in the voucher and, therefore, voucher, for this reason also, has to be excluded.” 16. The similar issue again came up before the Apex Court for consideration in the matter of State of U.P. and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 and Hon’ble Apex Court has held that non disclosure of documents having a potential to cause prejudice to Government servant in the enquiry proceeding and would clearly be denial of reasonable opportuntiy. For ready reference, para 37 is being quoted herein below; “We are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid observations are fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. For ready reference, para 37 is being quoted herein below; “We are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid observations are fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Non-disclosure of documents having a potential to cause prejudice to a Government servant in the enquiry proceedings would clearly be denial of a reasonable opportunity to submit a plausible and effective rebuttal to the charges being enquired into against the Government servant.” 17 Similar view again taken by the Apex Court in the matter of Brij Bihari Singh v. Bihar State Financial Corporation and others, 2016(1) ESC 1 (SC). For ready reference, para 9 is being quoted herein below; “It is well-settled that a person who is required to answer a charge imposed should know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. The delinquent must be given fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to cross-examine the witnesses who prove the charge. The delinquent must also be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him. A departure from this requirement violates the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. If the enquiry report is based on merely ipse dixit and also conjecture and surmises cannot be sustained in law.’’ 18. Therefore in the light of judgement of Apex Court referred herein above, this fact is very much clear that a document which is not mentioned in charge-sheet and not disclosed, violates the principle of natural justice. Therefore, no decision can be taken on the basis of such document. In present case, this fact is admitted that letter dated 16.10.1999 was not referred in the list of document mentioned in charge-sheet and decision was taken on the basis of this document. Therefore, punishment awarded vide order dated 26.12.2007 on the basis of this document and further affirmed by Tribunal vide its decision dated 15.2.2011 are not sustainable in the eye of law. 19. The enquiry officer has submitted enquiry reported dated 25.8.2006 and after the perusal of the same, it is absolutely clear that it is not conclusive and based on surmises and conjectures. 19. The enquiry officer has submitted enquiry reported dated 25.8.2006 and after the perusal of the same, it is absolutely clear that it is not conclusive and based on surmises and conjectures. In the enquiry report, the statement of the presenting officer is referred where presenting officer is not sure that whether the matter was in the konwledge of the petitione or not and it is stated. Relevant line of enquiry report is being quoted herein below: ^^-------------izLrqrdrkZ vfèkdkjh us Li"V fd;k gS fd vipkjh vf/kdkjh dk mijksDr dFku blfy;s lgh ugha gS] D;ksafd egkys[kkdkj dh vkfMV ikVhZ us vkfMV vof/k fnukad 3-2-2000 ls 16-2-2000 rd fd;s x;s vkfMV ds le; bl izdj.k dh tkudkjh vipkjh vf/kdkjh dks vo'; nh gksxhaA izLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh dh mijksDr fVIi.kh mfpr gS] D;ksafd vkfMV dh vof/k fnukad 3-2-2000 ls 16-2-2000 rd esa vipkjh vf/kdkjh] izkUrh; [k.M] lar jfonkl uxj ds vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk ds in ij rSukr FksA vr% vkfMV }kjk bafxr dh x;h dfe;ksa dks muds laKku esa vkfMV }kjk vo'; yk;k x;k gksxk-------------A** 20. Therefore, it is clear that even presenting officer was not sure that whether the matter was in the konwledge of the petitione or not, but the enquiry officer accepted the same and finally hold the petitioner guilty for negligence. The enquiry report also shows that the same is not bassed on a concrete evidence therefore the enquiry report is not conclusive. 21. We have gone through the order dated 26.12.2007 passed by Secretary, Public Works Department, which is also impugned in this writ petition. 22. The disciplinary authority has not considered any of the point raised by the petitioner in his representation dated 15.12.2006 and it was also based on presumption and in the order, he himself is saying that the deficiency mentioned in the audit report certainly may be brought into the knogledge of the petitioner. Relevant line of the order of disciplinary authority is being quoted herein below: ^^-----------vr% vkfMV }kjk bafxr dh x;h dfe;ksa dks muds laKku esa vkfMV }kjk vo'; yk;k x;k gksxk-------A** 23. Rule 9(4) of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1999 clearly provides that while imposing the penalty, disciplinary authority should consider the representation and pass reasoned order and here in order dated 15.12.2006 issued raised by petitioner has not been considered. Rule 9(4) of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1999 clearly provides that while imposing the penalty, disciplinary authority should consider the representation and pass reasoned order and here in order dated 15.12.2006 issued raised by petitioner has not been considered. Relevant line of Rule 9(4) of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1999 is being quoted herein below; “if the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of charges if of the opinion that any penalty specified in Rule 3 should be imposed on the charged Government servant, he shall give a copy of the enquiry report and his findings recorded under sub-rule (2) to the charged Government servant and require him to submit his representation if he so desires, within a reasonable specified time. The disciplinary authority shall, having regard to all the relevant records relating to the inquiry and representation of the charged Government servant, if any and subject to the provision of Rule 16 of these rules pass a reasoned order, imposing one or more penalties mentioned in Rule 3 of these rules and communicate the same to the charged Government servant.’’ 24. Therefore in the light of facts as well as Rule 9(4) of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1999, the order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 25. The Tribunal in its order dated 15.2.2011 has also committed the same error. In fact, it is clear cut of the case of the petitioner that enquiry report is based on letter dated 16.10.199 written by Nanhey Lal, Assistant Engineer (U.P. P.W.D.), which was not mentioned as evidence in the charge-sheet and enquiry officer was not supposed to use any of such documents against the petitioner. While deciding the issue, learned Tribunal has given only this finding that the petitioner has already knew about the letter dated 16.10.1999 but said nothing about the issue raised by the petitioner. This order is also based on presumption and it is recorded by the Tribunal that it appears that the disciplinary authority has discussed the representation submitted by the petitioner specially on page 3 of the impugned order. In fact, Tribunal is also not sure that the disciplinary authority has discussed the representation of the petitioner or not. This order is also based on presumption and it is recorded by the Tribunal that it appears that the disciplinary authority has discussed the representation submitted by the petitioner specially on page 3 of the impugned order. In fact, Tribunal is also not sure that the disciplinary authority has discussed the representation of the petitioner or not. For ready reference, relevant line of order of Tribunal is being quoted; “..........From perusal of the impugned punishment order it appears that disciplinaryh authority has discussed the representation submitted by the petitioner specially on page 3 of the impugned order........’’ 26. The complete order of Tribunal is basically based on letter dated 16.10.1999 by which it is presumed that the petitioner was fully aware about the dispute, therefore he was responsible to take necessary action in light of letters referred in charge-sheet though the same was issued much earlier to his joining at Bhadohi. Therefor, any order passed on presumption cannot be sustained. 27. In para 12 of the writ petition, the petitioner has relied upon Annexure 4A of the writ petition i.e. letter dated 3.9.2011, by which, an enquiry was conducted and it was held that none of the officer/employee is guilty and the same was accepted in para 9 of the counter-affidavit. For ready reference, para 12 of the writ petition and para 12 of the counter-affidavit are being quoted herein below; “Para 12 of the writ petition; That, thereafter in pursuance of the petitioner’s letter/directdion the Assistant Engineer has enquired the matter and sent to same to Executive Engineer through letter dated 3.9.2001, which shows that the petitioner has immediately taken action just after knowledge of the said Government material and enquired the same through Assistant Engineer, but in the meantime he has been transferred from Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi to Lucknow therefore he has not cause any Government loss. Para 9 of the counter-affidavit; That in reply to the contents of paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the writ petition, it is submitted that from the perusal of the enquiry report dated 25.8.2006, it is evident that the petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing and considered the submissions of the petitioner and thereafter, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report in which there is no illegality at all.” 28. Similarly in para 20, it is clearly stated that there is no Government loss of any material during the petitioner’s service period at Sant Ravidas Nagar. Material was utilized by BIDA after about three years after transfer of the petitioner from Sant Ravidas Nagar without permission of U.P. P.W.D. and in this reference, Superintendent Engineer has written letter dated 22.11.2003 and also relied upon a report of Junior Engineer dated 30.12.2003, which also says that all material so earlier collected was duly utilized in the construction of road and nothing remains on the site. For ready reference, para 20 of the writ petition and para 14 of the counter-affidavit are being quoted herein below; Para 20 of the writ petition, That, it is relevant to mention here that the disputed material was collected before the posting of petitioner at District Sant Ravidas Nagar and same was also lying at site under custody of Junior Engineer Incharge Krishna Ram and not used by Bhadohi Industrial Development authority and as soon as petitioner got knowledge about the said material through audit report on 16.9.2000, then immediately he has taken action and sent three letters to Assistant Engineer Sri Nanhey Lal and thereafter immediately he has been transferred from Sant Ravidas Nagar, therefore within short time petitioner has taken action and send reminders as well as compelled the subordinate officials to enquire the matter and take value of the materials which was lying at site under custody of Junior Engineer Incharge of work Sri Krishna Ram, which is evident from the report dated 30.12.2003 submitted by the aforesaid Junior Engineer itself. Therefore it is prima facie clear that there is no Government loss of any material during petitioner’s service period at Sant Ravidas Nagar Bhadohi. Therefore it is prima facie clear that there is no Government loss of any material during petitioner’s service period at Sant Ravidas Nagar Bhadohi. The material which was utilized by the Bhadohi Industrial Development authority, after about three years transfer of the petitioner from Sant Ravidas Nagar Bhadohi without prior permission of U.P.P.W.D., therefore Superintending Engineer of U.P.P.W.D. wrote a letter dated 22.11.2003 to Bhadohi Industrial Development aurhotiy about the said illegal action.” “Para 14 of the counter-affidavit, ‘that the contents of paragraph 20 of the writ petition are not admitted and in reply it is submitted that the order of punishment dated 26.12.2007 passed by the punishing authority as well as order passed by the Claim Tribunal dated 15.2.2011, are perfectly just and in accordance with law hence the present writ petition filed against the said order is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed with costs.’’ 29. It was also submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that in the charge-sheet there is allegation of loss of Rs. 5.77 lacs, which was proved in the enquiry report. This amount is also referred in the disciplinary authority dated 26.3.2007 but recovery was directed for only 15% of Rs. 5.77 lakh i.e. Rs. 86,550/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither in counter-affidavit nor during the course of arguement it has been explained that how the amount of 15% was fixed. Court has directely raised a query from the Standing Counsel to explain about the amount fixed for recovery, but he was not in a position to explain the same and in the counter-affidavit too, no basis is mentioned for determination of amount for recovery. 30. We have gone through the records available before us but nothing has been stated about the determination of amount of 15% i.e. Rs. 86,500/- and therefore it is absolutely clear that this amount has also been fixed in arbitrary manner without any logic. Learned Tribunal has also not considered this fact that how the amount of 15% was fixed and affirmed the impugned order dated 26.12.2007, therefore both the orders are not sustainable. 31. 86,500/- and therefore it is absolutely clear that this amount has also been fixed in arbitrary manner without any logic. Learned Tribunal has also not considered this fact that how the amount of 15% was fixed and affirmed the impugned order dated 26.12.2007, therefore both the orders are not sustainable. 31. Relying the facts and legal issues discussed herein above, we are of the view that both the orders dated 5.2.2011 passed by U.P. State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 626 of 2008 and order dated 26.12.2007 passed by Principal Secretary, U.P. P.W.D., Lucknow are not sustainable and hereby quashed. 32. So far as order dated 14.10.2011 passed in Revivew Petition No. 12 of 2011 is concerned, once the order of learned Tribunal is quashed, the same shall automatically be lost its effect and hereby quashed. 33. There is another issue before the Court whether the matter should be remanded back to the Tribunal or not to consider and decide again in light of observation made herein above. Court is of the view that when charge-sheet itself does not establish any charge and matter is pending since long, no fruitful purpose shall be served to remand the matter back to the Tribunal to decide again, when the petitioner has already retired from service on 31.1.2006. 34. Since this Court had already quashed the orders impugned in this writ petition, therefore the respondent is directed to refund the money which had already been recovered from the post retiral benefit of the petitioner and grant 6% interest from the date of recovery. It is further directed that amount, if any already deducted from GPF, petitioner shall be entitled to get interest on that admissible for GPF amount from the date of recovery. 35. With the aforesaid observation, the petition succeeds and is allowed.