JUDGMENT : 1. Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has pressed his application for recall of my order dated 09.11.2022. 2. I do not see any reason to recall my order dated 09.11.2022. The order dated 09.11.2022 has been complied with and the C.J.M. has ensured the appearance of the Executive Engineer today in the Court. 3. Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel has identified the Executive Engineer, the respondent no.2, namely, Sri Akshay Kumar. Since Sri Akshay Kumar was summoned in the Court only because counter affidavit was not filed in time. Now counter affidavit has been filed on 14.11.2022, this Court finds no reason for continued presence in person of the respondent no.2. His appearance is exempted. 4. As the respondent no.2 had been negligent in filing counter affidavit and therefore he was summoned in Court. Loss of work incurred in his office because of his appearance in Prayagraj, is because of his own negligence, no TA/DA be given to him for his travel to Prayagraj. 5. Heard Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 6. This petition has been filed praying for quashing of the impugned recovery order dated 21.06.2022 passed by the respondent no.2. 7. It is the case of the petitioner as argued by his counsel that the petitioner was appointed as Technical Grade-II in the respondent Corporation on 22.10.2008. While being posted at Saharanpur as TGT-II, the petitioner had been given officiating charge of Junior Engineer with the respondent no.2 at different power stations. In the Electricity Department, Junior Engineer is entitled for temporary advance of Rs.5,000/-only which he can spent at miscellaneous expenses against post voucher. After submission of proper vouchers, fresh advance of Rs.5,000/-is again given for further expenses. This miscellaneous advance is given to the Junior Engineer for getting various jobs completed for example tree cutting, digging etc. While discharging his duties as officiating Junior Engineer at 33/11 KV Power Station, Badgown under the respondent no.2, certain temporary advance was given to him for which the petitioner submitted his vouchers however such miscellaneous advance was not settled. After March 2016 also the petitioner had been issued temporary advance regularly for which the petitioner had submitted his vouchers but the account has not been settled. After March 2016 also the petitioner had been issued temporary advance regularly for which the petitioner had submitted his vouchers but the account has not been settled. When the petitioner was promoted on the post of Regular/Substantive Junior Engineer, he was transferred to Muzaffarnagar under the respondent no.3. He is still working at Muzaffarnagar under the respondent no.3. 8. On 28.03.2022, the respondent no.2 addressed a letter to the respondent no.3 advising recovery of Rs.2,78,661/-. In pursuance of the letter dated 28.03.2022, a copy of which was also given to the petitioner, the petitioner had given a reply to the respondent no.2 in April 2022 in which details for the period from April 2014 to March 2016 and the miscellaneous advance issued in his favour, were all mentioned. However, such reply was not considered. A few more queries were made by the respondent no.2 from the petitioner in relation to the initial amount of Rs.2,78,661/-. The petitioner was able to resolve/settle the amount of Rs.1,84,457/-. He however, could not satisfy the respondent no.2 about expenditure of Rs.90,000/-. He submitted his reply to the notice dated 30.04.2022 on 20.05.2022. Replying to all the queries made in the notice dated 30.04.2022 however by the impugned order dated 21.06.2022, the respondent no.2 has fastened the recovery of Rs.94,000/-upon the petitioner with a direction that the same be recovered in 18 monthly installments from the salary of the petitioner. 9. Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel, on the basis of counter affidavit submitted on behalf of the respondents, says that the petitioner was given charge of power sub-stations and LT/LH Lines/PC Poles/STP Poles etc. under the head of miscellaneous advance but he could not resolve/settle such miscellaneous advance as per Rules and therefore notice was issued to him for Rs.2,78,661/-. The petitioner submitted his reply and considering such reply, Rs.1,84,457/-was settled however around Rs.90,000/-could not be settled as was mentioned in the letter dated 30.04.2022. The petitioner submitted his reply on 20.05.2022 but his reply also did not contain the details of expenditure of Rs.90,000/-. Hence, by the impugned order, a recovery has been proposed in monthly installments from his salary. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon his rejoinder affidavit saying that the petitioner has been issued Last Pay Certificate upto December 2016 from the office of the respondent no.2, thereafter he was transferred to the office of the respondent no.3. Hence, by the impugned order, a recovery has been proposed in monthly installments from his salary. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon his rejoinder affidavit saying that the petitioner has been issued Last Pay Certificate upto December 2016 from the office of the respondent no.2, thereafter he was transferred to the office of the respondent no.3. A Last Pay Certificate was also issued to him upto 31.07.2018. In the Last Pay Certificate, copies of which have been filed collectively as RA-1, it is not evident that any recovery has been proposed at any point of time. Such Last Pay Certificates are only issued if there are no dues outstanding against the employee. 11. This Court has carefully perused the page no.9 and 11 of the rejoinder affidavit and finds that details of pay, grade pay, dearness allowance, city compensatory allowance, house rent allowance, medical allowance, cycle allowance, washing allowance, handicap vehicle allowance, technical allowance etc. have been mentioned but against the column of miscellaneous advance, nothing has been mentioned and all the columns relating to recoveries to be made from the employee, have also been left blank. 12. It is not clear from the Last Pay Certificates issued on 27.01.2017 and 31.07.2018 that any miscellaneous advance was ever given to the petitioner which remained unsettled. 13. The Last Pay Certificates, copies of which have been filed at page 9 and 11 of the rejoinder affidavit, have been duly signed by the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-II, Saharanpur therefore there seems to be some substance in the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. However, this Court has perused the counter affidavit and also the correspondence undertaken by the respondent nos.2 and 3 with the petitioner and is not convinced that no miscellaneous advance is outstanding against the petitioner. It appears that due to administrative oversight or even due to gross negligence, Last Pay Certificates have been issued from the office of the respondent no.2. 14. Let, the Managing Director of Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. look into the matter personally with regard to the issuance of such Last Pay Certificates to the petitioner negligently mentioning no miscellaneous advance is outstanding against him and no recovery is proposed. 14. Let, the Managing Director of Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. look into the matter personally with regard to the issuance of such Last Pay Certificates to the petitioner negligently mentioning no miscellaneous advance is outstanding against him and no recovery is proposed. He shall summon an explanation from the respondent no.2 and also from the petitioner and refer the matter to an Inquiry Committee, if need be, for making it recommendations after examining all records. 15. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions which this Court expects to be complied with by the respondent no.1 within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is produced before it. 16. The miscellaneous advance as computed by the respondent no.2 by the impugned order shall abide by the final order to be passed after due inquiry by the respondent no.1.