ORDER : 1. The petitioner before this Court is the former Secretary to the Speaker of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly. Due to the change in the government a new Speaker was elected. The petitioner, who was working as a Secretary on deputation to the Hon’ble Speaker was relieved and repatriated to his parent department. However, his salary has not been paid since then. The 2nd respondent did not issue the Last Pay Certificate of the petitioner. The reason for refusal by the 2nd respondent is the apparent failure of the petitioner to return certain furniture, electrical items which had been taken under his signature for the use of the Speaker. Since, these items are not returned in their entirety, the petitioner was denied his salary. Hence, the writ petition is filed for the following relief: “….to issue a writ or order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of mandamus (a) declaring the action of the 1st and 2nd respondents in not issuing my last pay certificate (LPC) as illegal, contrary to law, arbitrary and against principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue my LPC and (b) declaring the action of the 4th to 6th respondents in not disbursing my monthly salary on the ground of non-issuance of LPC by the 2nd respondent as arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the 4th to 6th respondents to pay monthly salary to me even in the absence of LPC and basing on last pay drawn slips and pass such other and further orders in the interest of justice.” 2. This Court has heard Sri Posani Venkatwarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Metta Chandra Sekhara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for A.P. Legislature appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents, learned Government Pleader for School Education and learned Government Pleader for Services-III also appeared for the other respondents. 3. Sri Metta Chandra Sekhara Rao filed certain material papers and argued the matter on its merits. With the consent of all the learned counsel, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for hearing. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that he was only the Secretary to a dignitary. 3. Sri Metta Chandra Sekhara Rao filed certain material papers and argued the matter on its merits. With the consent of all the learned counsel, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for hearing. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that he was only the Secretary to a dignitary. It is his primary contention that the material was received by the petitioner in the course of discharge of his duties as a Secretary and that he did not personally use or utilise the material. Therefore, he submits that the salary of the petitioner cannot be withheld. He also argues that there is no rule or law which permits the State to withheld the salary. He also argues that as the LPC was wrongly withheld, his salary was also withheld. Relying upon the Fundamental Rules and the Subsidiary Rules of the Andhra Pradesh Government learned counsel argues that the petitioner is entitled to draw his salary unless and until the same is withheld pursuant to a rule of law. He argues that the petitioner is entitled to his pay from the date he assumes office till he ceases to hold the office. He points out that no disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the consequence of events brings to the notice of this Court that the petitioner was relieved of duties in the peshi of the Hon’ble Speaker on 30.05.2019. He also points out that the petitioner directed to join duty as Assistant Academic Monitoring Officer to the RMSA, who functions under the 5th respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner joined duty on 26.06.2019. The Commissioner of School Education-4th respondent also requested the 2nd respondent to furnish the Last Pay Certificate in order to process the salary of the petitioner but the same was not given. The petitioner also made a representation dated 06.09.2019 and 30.10.2019 praying for payment of his salary but the same was rejected by the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 06.11.2019. In which it is clarified that unless the articles are returned by the petitioner, the LPC cannot be issued. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s salary is being denied as the LPC is not issued and the same is not being issued because the material is not returned by the former speaker. 5. In which it is clarified that unless the articles are returned by the petitioner, the LPC cannot be issued. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s salary is being denied as the LPC is not issued and the same is not being issued because the material is not returned by the former speaker. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner again reiterates and argues that the petitioner only acknowledged the receipt of the material, which was ultimately used by the then Hon’ble Speaker. He points out to the letter dated 07.06.2019 wherein the Speaker himself had offered to pay the cost of the said items for both the electrical and the furniture items. The Speaker offered to pay for the same. This request was reiterated on 20.08.2019. Learned counsel points out that the W.P.No.12126 of 2019 was also filed by the former Speaker questioning the action of the 2nd respondent in seizing the furniture and for a direction to the respondents to evaluate of the value of the property. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also points out to a police report dated 24.08.2019 submitted by the 2nd respondent to the Station House Officer, Thulluru, wherein he clearly mentions that action should be taken against the former Speaker and another person only. Learned counsel also relies upon the FIR, which was registered on 24.08.2019, in which a former Speaker and another person alone are shown as the accused. Learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to a further Memo dated 28.08.2019 by which the police have sought the permission of the Court to add another accused to the FIR and add another section also to the list of offences. In this memo also, two other persons are named but not the present petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore argues that the sequence of the events show that the petitioner merely acknowledged the receipt of the material for his “superior”, did not either utilise the material for himself or divert the same for his personal use. Even the criminal cases that were filed are against others but not against the present petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore argues that the sequence of the events show that the petitioner merely acknowledged the receipt of the material for his “superior”, did not either utilise the material for himself or divert the same for his personal use. Even the criminal cases that were filed are against others but not against the present petitioner. He also relies upon the following judgments to argue that the LPC cannot be held back - Sumati Das v State of West Bengal and Others Harbinder Singh Mann v State of Punjab (through Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fishery Department, Punjab, Chandigarh) and others Kandarpa Kumar Deka v State of Assam and Ors., 7. For the 3rd and 5th respondents, the Government Pleader for School Education, on the basis of written instructions, argues that these respondents were following up for the Last Pay Certificate. He relies upon the written instructions which show that an effort was made by the 3rd to 5th respondents for securing the LPC and also to pay the salary. He also draws the attention of the Court to the fact that an amount of Rs.2,13,780/-was already sanctioned but the same could not be disbursed as the LPC has not been issued. 8. Learned standing counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents reiterates the factual position as mentioned in paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. It is mentioned that the petitioner while working in the peshi had taken the items which are detailed therein. A majority of the items were returned but 12 items are not returned. Learned standing counsel relies upon the proceedings dated 24.05.2019 stating that the staff working in the peshies shall have to handover all the materials under proper acknowledgment. Therefore, learned counsel argues that it is the sole responsibility of the employee, who has received the material, to return the same. Learned standing counsel relies upon the various letters, which he has filed, whereby the petitioner was personally directed to return the material. He points out that in the letter dated 06.11.2019 itself it was clarified that once the entire furniture and electrical items were returned a request for LPC would be considered. Therefore, learned standing counsel argues that respondents 1 and 2 have not acted contrary to the rule position. He points out that in the letter dated 06.11.2019 itself it was clarified that once the entire furniture and electrical items were returned a request for LPC would be considered. Therefore, learned standing counsel argues that respondents 1 and 2 have not acted contrary to the rule position. It is his contention that the material belonging to the State has not been returned by the petitioner and therefore he is not entitled to seek any relief. 9. After considering the submissions made by both the parties, this Court notices that the State did not rely upon any rule position to deny the case set up by the petitioner. An application to return the material is a general obligation of every Government servant who has received some material for his use. In the case on hand the petitioner has received the material for and on behalf of his “superior” and not for his personal use. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it is clear that the respondents also do not believe that the petitioner is responsible for the alleged diversion or non-return of the material. The report that has been registered as Crime No.244 of 2019 of Thullur Police Station does not make a reference to the petitioner. The subsequent investigation and the memo filed before the concerned Court at Mangalagiri only speaks of two other accused and does not make a reference to the petitioner. It is interesting to note that very specific allegations are made in the memo against two persons refereed therein. Specific dates are also given of the alleged diversion of material belonging to the Legislative Assembly. The allegation is also made against the former Speaker and another person. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that when the material is not capable of being returned, the State is not precluded from calculating the monetary value of the same. The former Speaker addressed letters dated 07.06.2019 and 20.08.2019 asking the State to fix the value of the material and agreed to pay for the same. A Writ Petition was also filed by the erstwhile Speaker. Apart from this in Paragraph 7 (A) of the writ affidavit, the petitioner has stated on oath that he did not acknowledge or permit shifting of the furniture as alleged. This part of his affidavit is not denied in the counter that has been filed. A Writ Petition was also filed by the erstwhile Speaker. Apart from this in Paragraph 7 (A) of the writ affidavit, the petitioner has stated on oath that he did not acknowledge or permit shifting of the furniture as alleged. This part of his affidavit is not denied in the counter that has been filed. The petitioner also states that it is the Chief Marshal of the Legislative Assembly who has the physical control and that for his lapses petitioner cannot be penalised. This issue is also not denied. 10. Last but not the least this Court notices case law that has been cited. In Sumati Das case (1 supra) the Government servant was unauthorisedly occupying a Government quarter in her former station. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court clearly held that on the ground of unauthorised activity the LPC cannot be withheld. In Harbinder Singh Mann case (2 supra) the Division Bench held that withholding of LPC on the ground that the employee did not handover the charge nor applied for medical leave is incorrect. In this case the Division Bench directed the payment of his salary along with interest. In the last case cited i.e., Kandarpa Kumar Deka case (3 supra) also similar order was passed. The salary was withheld in this case because the petitioner has not supposedly handed over certain registers. The learned single Judge held that handing over the items etc., is a matter that has to be determined in an appropriate criminal trial or the departmental proceedings, but on that ground the payment of salary cannot be denied. In that case, it is clearly mentioned that the direction was given in the unique facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Apart from the case law, this Court also notices and finds sufficient strength in the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. An employee, particularly working as a Secretary to a dignitary or a Personal Assistant would in the course of his duties receive material, items etc., for the use of the dignitary. If the facts disclose that the Secretary or the Personal Assistant had in fact diverted the materials or otherwise had converted the same to his use, appropriate departmental or criminal action can be launched against him. If the facts disclose that the Secretary or the Personal Assistant had in fact diverted the materials or otherwise had converted the same to his use, appropriate departmental or criminal action can be launched against him. If it is found that the Secretary or the Personal Assistant or any other employee was not in any way connected personally with the failure to return the material, this Court is of the firm opinion that the salary of the employee cannot be denied. Even if it is found that the employee was involved directly and had contributed to the diversion and or failure to return the material, action can only be taken as per the relevant rules and regulations. Action can also be instituted under the provisions of the Criminal Law. But on the ground that the material has not been returned, the salary of an employee cannot be withheld. This would amount to decision being taken on the “culpability” of the employee without following the due process of law. Before any such drastic order is passed the rules of natural justice and the relevant regulations must be scrupulously followed. In the absence of any rule position, the rules of natural justice i.e., a show cause notice, a pre decisional hearing, should be given. For a middle class employee, the salary is the basic financial foundation on which he survives. The entire family depends upon the salary. The repercussions of such an order would not only be on the employee but also on his immediate family. Therefore, before any such drastic action is taken the petitioner should be given an opportunity of hearing as per the rules. If there are no rules an explanation at least must be invited. A post-decision explanation for withholding the salary is not correct. Even in cases of suspension pending enquiry, subsistence allowance is directed to be paid in order to ensure that the delinquent does not suffer seriously. In this case, the petitioner has been denied his entire salary without any proceedings being taken against him. No rule was quoted or relied upon. The police report and subsequent memo do not make any reference to his so called culpability in the failure to return the material. On the other hand, they clearly point an accusing finger against others. In this case, the petitioner has been denied his entire salary without any proceedings being taken against him. No rule was quoted or relied upon. The police report and subsequent memo do not make any reference to his so called culpability in the failure to return the material. On the other hand, they clearly point an accusing finger against others. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to an order as prayed for. The actions of the 1st and the 2nd respondents are held to be clearly unjustified. Therefore, they are immediately directed to issue the Last Pay Certificate to the petitioner and the other respondents are directed to immediately pay all the arrears of salary due to the petitioner and continue to pay the salary. 12. With the above observation the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall also stand closed.