JUDGMENT Kuldeep Mathur, J. - By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: "It is therefore, prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction (a) the impugned recovery order dated 14.12.2015 (Annex. 12), order dated 4.1.2016 (Annex. 14) as well as the order dated 29.1.2016 (Annex. 16) passed by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside and; (b) if any amount is recovered from the petitioner during the pendency of this writ petition, then, the respondents may kindly be directed to refund the same along with the interest @ 12% per annum, if any and; (c) the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the service increment to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.9.1986 with all consequential benefits and after making the correct re-fixation, the arrears of entire retiral benefits may also be granted to the petitioner with interest @ 12% per annum. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be made in favour of the petitioner." 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner joined respondent-department w.e.f. 23.04.1975, on the post of Meter Reader-II (Apprentice Trainee). The petitioner after rendering services for around 40 years stood superannuated from the services w.e.f. 31.10.2015. The amount of gratuity was withheld by the respondent-department in order to ensure recoveries from the petitioner against the excess payment made due to grant of an increment wrongly while making his pay fixation under the Rajasthan Civil Service (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as, "Rules of 1987") w.e.f. 01.09.1986 and also for being negligent in performing his duties as Legal Assistant. According to the respondent-department, a decree dated 26.03.2012 for a sum ofRs.3,46,937 was passed against department by the court of learned Additional District Judge (FT) No. 2, Udaipur due to negligence of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the validity and proprietary of the orders impugned submitted that the service increments were allowed to the petitioner in the year 1986 by the respondents while making pay fixation under the Rules of 1987 at their own without any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the validity and proprietary of the orders impugned submitted that the service increments were allowed to the petitioner in the year 1986 by the respondents while making pay fixation under the Rules of 1987 at their own without any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. He further submitted that recovery of amountRs.3,46,937 cannot be fastened upon the petitioner as he was not at all negligent in performing the duties assigned to him by the department. It was further submitted that recovery from an employee for any pecuniary loss caused to the department due to negligence or lapse or breach of duty amounts to a penalty prescribed under Regulation 5 of the RSEB Employees Classification, Control & Appeal Regulations, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations of 1962'). However, the procedure provided under the Regulations of 1962 for imposition of penalty upon an employee working with the respondent-department was not followed. The counsel urged that the impugned orders deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner cannot be allowed to enjoy the service benefits for which he is otherwise, not entitled and if a service benefit has been extended mistakenly to the petitioner, then the same can be rectified subsequently by way of recovery. It was further submitted that the negligence in performance of duties by the petitioner was established in an in-house fact finding inquiry conducted by the department. Thus, the petitioner's contention that no inquiry was conducted is devoid of any substance. The counsel urged that the impugned orders does not suffer from any illegality, therefore, the same may not be interfered with. 5. Heard submissions advanced at Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala & Ors. The counsel urged that the impugned orders does not suffer from any illegality, therefore, the same may not be interfered with. 5. Heard submissions advanced at Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in (2022) 0 AIR (SC) 2153 while dealing with the issue as to whether increments granted to an employee can be recovered on his retirement, was pleased to held as under: "This Court in a catena of decisions has consistently held that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud of the employee or if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess payment of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable. This relief against the recovery is granted not because of any right of the employees but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employees from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered. This Court has further held that if in a given case, it is proved that an employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, the courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case order for recovery of amount paid in excess." 7. In the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering various situations which may arise in the cases where payment in excess to the entitlement is made to an employee held as under: "8. As between two parties, if a determination is rendered in favour of the party, which is the weaker of the two, without any serious detriment to the other (which is truly a welfare State), the issue resolved would be in consonance with the concept of justice, which is assured to the citizens of India, even in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The right to recover being pursued by the employer, will have to be compared, with the effect of the recovery on the employee concerned. If the effect of the recovery from the employee concerned would be, more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer to recover the amount, then it would be iniquitous and arbitrary, to effect the recovery. In such a situation, the employee's right would outbalance, and therefore eclipse, the right of the employer to recover. xxxx 18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover." 8. The Regulations of 1962 applies to all employees of the respondent-department. Regulation 5 of the Regulations of 1962 is reproduced herein below for the sake of ready reference: "5. Penalties (1) The appointing authority or any authority higher than the appointing authority or any lower authority to whom powers may be delegated by the Board in this behalf may inflict on an employee the penalties specified below for good and sufficient reasons which shall be recorded. (a) Censure. (b) Withholding or postponing of increments or promotion permanently or for specified period. (c) Fine. (a) Censure. (b) Withholding or postponing of increments or promotion permanently or for specified period. (c) Fine. (d) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Board by negligence or lapse or breach of any law, rule or order. (e) Reducing to a lower class, grade or post or to a lower time scale or in the case of pension or reduction in Board's contribution to the Contributory Provident Fund, to an amount lower than that due and admissible under the Regulations. (f) Compulsory retirement before attaining the age of superannuations. (g) Removal from service. (h) Dismissal. Penalties, mentioned at Serial Nos. (a) to (d) are minor ones and those at S. Nos. (e) to (h) are major ones." 9. Manifestly thus, in order to impose a penalty prescribed under Regulation 5 of the Regulations of 1962, the procedure provided under Regulation 6 and 7, which deals with imposition of minor and major penalties upon an employee is required to be adhered to. The respondents have ordered recovery ofRs.3,46,937 from petitioner on the ground of his being negligent without establishing his guilt by way of conducting an inquiry as per the procedure provided under the Regulations of 1962. The in-house fact finding inquiry conducted by the respondents can be a basis to hold regular inquiry by following the procedure under the Regulations of 1962 but cannot be made sole basis for ordering recovery from an employee. 10. In view of enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and facts of the case, it can be safely concluded that orders dated 14.12.2015, 04.01.2016 and 29.01.2016 are illegal and contrary to the provisions of Regulations of 1962. 11. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is accordingly, allowed. The impugned orders dated 14.12.2015, 04.01.2016 and 29.01.2016 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release gratuity and other retiral benefits, if any in favour of petitioner forthwith along with interest @4% p.a. 12. It is further ordered that if any amount has been recovered from the retiral benefits of the petitioner as a consequence of the impugned orders, the same shall be refunded forthwith along with interest @4% p.a. 13. No order as to costs.