ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against withholding of her retiral benefits by the respondents and a direction to grant full gratuity amount to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- and earned leave of Rs.69,307/- along with interest till the date of realization. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Medical Officer in the year 1987 and on the date of her superannuation on 31/1/2022 she was posted as General Specialist (Surgery) at District Hospital, Paota, Jodhpur. 3. On 5/2/2021, the Deputy Secretary of the Medical & Health Department issued a certificate regarding non-pendency of any departmental inquiry. On 23/3/2021, the petitioner received a notice from Principal Medical Officer, District Hospital, Paota, Jodhpur (‘the PMO’) inter alia with reference to a complaint dated 1/12/2020 indicating that though her husband was allotted Government accommodation and she was staying in the said Govt. accommodation, she has availed the benefit of House Rent Allowance from 18/12/2003 to 31/1/2021 and, therefore, why not a sum of Rs.20,69,307/- be recovered from her gratuity/commutation/pension and in case she wants to deposit the same she was called upon to give her response within a period of 05 days and in case no response was given the same would be recovered ex-parte. 4. The petitioner filed her response on 6/4/2021 contesting the contents of the notice and asserted that the amount could not be recovered from her. On 8/4/2021, the PMO required further information from the petitioner for which the petitioner once sought time. 5. Whereafter, it appears that the matter somehow came to be referred to a committee of Dr. S.N.Medical College, Jodhpur, which sought further information from the petitioner on 23/6/2021 (Annex.9) to which the petitioner responded on 5/7/2021 (Annex.10), which committee submitted its report on which the Financial Advisor of the College gave his comments inter alia indicating that as the provisions for payment of HRA were not clear, on the said aspect it would be appropriate that directions be sought from the Finance Department, Jaipur, based on which on 30/8/2021 the Principal & Controller, Dr. S.N.Medical College, Jodhpur (‘the Principal’) forwarded the matter to Addl. Director (Administration), Jaipur and a copy whereof was marked to the PMO. 6. S.N.Medical College, Jodhpur (‘the Principal’) forwarded the matter to Addl. Director (Administration), Jaipur and a copy whereof was marked to the PMO. 6. On 20/8/2021, the PMO passed an office order inter alia indicating that as the matter has been sent by the Principal to the State Government for directions, permission is granted for withholding the amount of Rs.20 lakhs from the gratuity and Rs.69,307/- from the encashment of earned leave of the petitioner. 7. On 2/11/2021 the Addl. Director (Administration), Jaipur required the Principal to recover the amount of HRA from the petitioner observing that the HRA was not payable. The said communication dated 2/11/2021 (Annex.12) was forwarded by the Principal to PMO requiring him to recover the amount immediately. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 8. When the matter came up for admission before the Court on 6/12/2021, copy of the petition was ordered to be served on learned AAG, who was required to complete his instructions, the petitioner filed additional affidavit relying on the order dated 14/6/2017 of the State Govt. (Annex.14), wherein, the State had withdrawn its earlier order dated 30/1/2017 restricting the payment of HRA to only one employee where both husband and wife being Govt. employees were living in the same accommodation. 9. A reply to the petition was filed by the respondents, seeking to justify the order of recovery inter alia based on the ground that petitioner and her husband were sharing the same Govt. accommodation allotted to her husband. 10. The matter thereafter remained pending, wherein, an additional affidavit was filed by the respondents, which was countered by the petitioner and, thereafter another additional affidavit was filed by the respondents. In the last, an additional affidavit was filed on 14/3/2022, wherein, it was indicated by the respondents that on 11/3/2022, i.e. during the pendency of the petition, the PMO informed the Principal that pursuant to the direction dated 3/11/2021 the amount has been recovered on 4/3/2022 from the petitioner from the withheld amount to the tune of Rs.20,69,307/-. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that action of the respondents in recovering the amount in the manner in which they have proceeded even during the pendency of the present writ petition, clearly smacks of vendetta. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that action of the respondents in recovering the amount in the manner in which they have proceeded even during the pendency of the present writ petition, clearly smacks of vendetta. Submissions have been made that the respondents started the process against the petitioner based on a complaint for recovery of HRA paid to her. Notice was issued to the petitioner, to which she responded and, thereafter, for the reasons best known to the competent authority i.e. PMO, the matter was referred to the Principal, who appointed a committee, which committee gave its report, which report has not seen the light of the day, the Financial Advisor commented on the said report and required the Finance Department to guide on the same. However, instead of Finance Department, the Additional Director mandated recovery from the petitioner, based on which the Principal forwarded the direction to the PMO and the PMO despite being aware of pendency of the writ petition and the fact that the matter was getting listed before the Court regularly and affidavits, counter affidavits were being filed, has ordered for recovery of the amount, which is wholly unjustified. 12. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has served the institution for over 33 years, at the end of which the treatment meted out to her is not justified, that also without affording an opportunity of hearing. 13. Submissions have been made that entire case sought to be made against the petitioner for recovery is absolutely baseless, which aspect is reflected by the petitioner in her response to the show cause notice, which was issued to her, however, thereafter, without affording any further opportunity and/or calling upon the petitioner to respond to the so called dictate of the Addl. Director (Administration), the PMO has ordered for recovery of the amount without even deciding the show cause notice issued to the petitioner and as such, the entire action of the respondents deserves to be quashed and set aside. Director (Administration), the PMO has ordered for recovery of the amount without even deciding the show cause notice issued to the petitioner and as such, the entire action of the respondents deserves to be quashed and set aside. Submissions were made that the action of the respondents clearly smacks of an overreach on their part when despite the fact that the matter was getting repeatedly listed before the Court, just to frustrate the pending petition the withheld amount has been adjusted by the respondents, which action in fact amounts to contempt of this Court and, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner also attempted to make submissions with reference to the material on record to indicate that the petitioner was rightly granted the amount of HRA to which she was entitled and, therefore, the recovery made by the respondents is not justified. It was prayed that the petition be allowed and the action of the respondents in this regard be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents made submissions again based on the material placed on record to indicate that the petitioner was not entitled for grant of HRA, which was wrongly claimed by and paid to her and, therefore, the same was rightly recovered from the petitioner and, therefore, the action of the respondents does not call for any interference. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. With regard to the entitlement of the petitioner to receive HRA and why the same should not be recovered from the petitioner, a show cause notice dated 23/3/2021 (Annex.3) was issued by the PMO, after the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31/1/2021. With regard to the entitlement of the petitioner to receive HRA and why the same should not be recovered from the petitioner, a show cause notice dated 23/3/2021 (Annex.3) was issued by the PMO, after the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31/1/2021. Relevant portion inter alia reads as under: ^^6- ;g fd vki fnukad 31-01-2021 dks jktdh; lsok ls vf/kokf"kZdh lsokfuo`fRr mijkar lsokfuo`Rr gks pqds gS rks D;ksa ugha vkils edku fdjk;s HkRrk dh olwyh fnukad 18-12-2003 ls 31-01-2021 rd jkf'k :i;s 2069307@& v{kjs chl yk[k mugrj gtkj rhu lkS lkr :i;s vkidh xzsP;qVh@dE;qVs'ku@isa'ku lank; ls dh tkosA vxj vki jkf'k pSd@uxn tek djokuk pkgrs gS rks vki pkyku ¼ctV en 2210&01&911&02&03&98½ }kjk tek djokdj bl dk;kZy; dks lwfpr djokus dk Je djkosaA vki viuk izR;qRrj 50@& :i;s ds uksu T;qfMf'k;y LVkEi ij izsf"kr djok;s D;ksafd jktdh; lsok dk vuqca/k fnukad 31-01-2021 dks lekIr gks pqdk gSA izR;qRrj 5 ¼ikap½ fnol esa vfuok;Z :i ls izsf"kr djok;saA foyEc ds fy;s dk;kZy; mRrjnk;h ugha jgsxk rFkk izR;qRrj izkIr u gksus@izR;qRrj izkIr djus dh vof/k lekIr gksus ij dk;kZy; ,d rjQk edku fdjk;s dh olwyh djus ds fy;s Lora= jgsxkA layXu %& fooj.k lgh@& izeq[k fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh] ftyk vLirky ikoVk tks/kiqj^^ From the above, it is ex-facie clear that the PMO issued show cause notice to the petitioner as to why the amount be not recovered from her. The petitioner filed her response on 6/4/2021 (Annex.4), whereafter, further details were sought from the petitioner on 8/4/2021 which along with reply were forwarded to the Principal. Whereafter, somehow (as the aspect has not been cleared) the matter came to be referred to the committee consisting of Addl. Principal – I and Senior Professor, Principal Medical Officer and Accounts Officer, which committee, it appears, came to the conclusion that the payment of HRA was justified, however, the Financial Advisor of the College required that direction in this regard be obtained from the Finance Department. Based on which a communication dated 13/8/2021 (Annex.R/1) was addressed to the Addl. Principal – I and Senior Professor, Principal Medical Officer and Accounts Officer, which committee, it appears, came to the conclusion that the payment of HRA was justified, however, the Financial Advisor of the College required that direction in this regard be obtained from the Finance Department. Based on which a communication dated 13/8/2021 (Annex.R/1) was addressed to the Addl. Director by the Principal inter alia requiring as under: ^^vr% bl laca/k esa foRr foHkkx ls ekxZn'kZu izkIr dj bl egkfo|ky; dks lwfpr djkos fd MkW- jtuh yk[kksfV;k] lsokfuo`r izeq[k fo'ks"kK 'kY; dks edku fdjk;k HkRrk izkIr djus dh gdnkj gS vFkok ughaA D;ksafd bl laca/k esa fu;eksa esa Li”Vrk ugha gSA^^ In the meanwhile, the PMO on 20/9/2021 (Annex.13) passed the following order permitting withholding of sum of Rs.20,69,307/- from the retiral benefits of the petitioner: ^^dk;kZy; izeq[k fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh ftyk vLirky ikoVk] tks/kiqj Øekad laLFkk&1@21@3261&62 fnukad 20-9-2021 dk;kZy; vkns'k MkW- jtuh yk[kksfV;k] in izeq[k fo'ks"kK ¼ltZjh½ ftudh tUe frfFk 26-01-1969 gSA fnukad 31-1-2021 dks vf/kokf"kZdh vk;q 62 o"kZ iw.kZ djus ij fnukad 31-01-2021 e/;kUg i'pkr dks lsokfuo`r gks xbZA buds fo:) izkIr fopkjk/khu jktdh; vkokl fdjk;k HkRrk ls lacaf/kr f'kdk;r ds Øe esa Jheku~ iz/kkukpk;Z ,oa fu;=ad] MkW- ,l-,u- esfMdy dkWyst] tks/kiqj }kjk jkT; ljdkj t;iqj dks ekxZn'kZu gsrq izsf"kr izdj.k dh fopkjk/khu jkf'k :i;s 20]69]307@& ¼v{kjs :i;s chl yk[k mulrj gtkj rhu lkS lkr ek=½ dks Jheku~ ys[kkf/kdkjh] MkW- ,l-,u- esfMdy dkWyst] tks/kiqj dh dk;kZy; fVIi.kh ds vuqlkj :i;s chl yk[k ¼20-00 yk[k½ xszP;qVh en ls rFkk cdk;k jkf'k :i;s 69]307@& ¼mulrj gtkj rhu lkS lkr½ mikftZr vodk'k dh uxnhdj.k esa ls fu;ekuqlkj jksds tkus dh Lohd`fr iznku dh tkrh gSA lgh@& izeq[k fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh jktdh; ftyk vLirky ikoVk tks/kiqj^^ The Addl. Director on 2/11/2021 (Annex.R/2) opined in response to the communication dated 13/8/2021 (Annex.R/1) that the amount be recovered from the petitioner. On the said response received by the Principal, the response was endorsed to the PMO requiring him to recover the amount. On the said communication dated 3/11/2021, the PMO appears to have required the recovery of the amount, which was withheld from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. On the said response received by the Principal, the response was endorsed to the PMO requiring him to recover the amount. On the said communication dated 3/11/2021, the PMO appears to have required the recovery of the amount, which was withheld from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. Though the letter in this regard was written by him based on the communication dated 3/11/2021 on 11/11/2021 (as indicated during the course of submissions) and the matter was repeatedly getting listed before the Court and affidavits, counter affidavits were being filed, on 3/3/2022 the amount came to be recovered and the PMO informed the Principal in this regard on 11/3/2022. From the above sequence of events it is more than apparent that though the PMO, the competent authority with regard to ordering of recovery, if any from the petitioner, issued show cause notice to the petitioner to which the petitioner responded, the PMO instead of deciding the issue, in complete abdication of his duty to decide the issue himself, apparently forwarded the issue to the Principal, who in turn formed a committee which apparently gave report in favour of the petitioner, which report has not seen the light of the day inasmuch as before this Court the same has not been produced and the Financial Advisor of the College apparently required guidance of the Finance Department, which guidance came from the Addl. Director (Administration), based on which the PMO has ultimately acted. The abdication of duty on the part of PMO, who was obliged on account of his position as a competent authority to decide the show cause notice himself is thus apparent. It is an admitted fact that recovery was ordered by PMO because of the communication dated 2/11/2021, which power ought to have been exercised by him after applying his mind independently in the matter, but that has not been done. The PMO has surrendered his authority in favour of the opinion given by the Addl. Director (Admn.). The passing of the order to recover the amount without deciding the issue does not indicate that the PMO was independently satisfied on the aspect but was compelled to obey the command of his superior and, therefore, the action is clearly vitiated. The PMO has surrendered his authority in favour of the opinion given by the Addl. Director (Admn.). The passing of the order to recover the amount without deciding the issue does not indicate that the PMO was independently satisfied on the aspect but was compelled to obey the command of his superior and, therefore, the action is clearly vitiated. Further, even till date, there is no order passed on the show cause notice issued to the petitioner and/or any specific order determining the aspect pertaining to the alleged wrong claim made by the petitioner and its recovery from the petitioner. The PMO in a wholly inappropriate and illegal manner, merely based on the communication received from the Principal dated 3/11/2021 containing the command of Addl. Director (Administration) has proceeded to intimate the Pension Department to recover the withheld amount from the retiral benefits of the petitioner, the absence of order on the show cause notice also cannot be countenanced. Further, there has been gross violation of principles of nature justice on the part of the PMO, who, even if it is assumed in following the command of his superior was justified, was bound to confront the petitioner with the direction and seek her response on the same. The opinion obtained ex-parte, without providing opportunity to the petitioner, could not have been made basis and/or order itself for recovery against the petitioner. Further, the action on the part of respondents during the pendency of the writ petition is clearly by way of overreach on their part only with an attempt to frustrate the present proceedings. Admittedly, the matter was listed before Court after appearance was made by the respondents on 15/12/2021, 20/12/2021, 6/1/2022, 13/1/2022, 2/2/2022, 14/2/2022, 21/2/2022, 4/3/2022 and 14/3/2022 during which affidavits, counter affidavits etc. were exchanged between the parties and suddenly during the course of pendency of the writ petition and the fact that matter was being regularly taken up by the Court, the action of recovering the amount from the withheld amount, that also after the communication was made by the PMO in this regard to the Pension Department, way back on 11/11/2021 based on the advise dated 2/11/2021 i.e. after about four months without there being any fresh trigger in this regard, is clearly intended to frustrate the present petition. The PMO was produced personally by the respondents before the Court, who on query was unable to indicate any fresh trigger for the respondents to take action on 4/3/2022 in recovering the amount, which clearly establishes that the attempt has only been to frustrate the present petition. As presently there is no determination of the dispute by any competent authority, this Court, despite the parties making submissions on the merits of the issue relating to entitlement to HRA, has not made any observations on the said aspect so as not to prejudge the issue. In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that there is no order passed by the PMO for recovery of the amount from the petitioner after deciding the show cause notice dated 23/3/2021, the action of the PMO is in complete abdication of his duty in directing the recovery based on the communication dated 2/11/2021 of the Addl. Director (Administration), without himself deciding the issue, the action is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and apparently by way of overreach as an attempt to frustrate the present petition, therefore, the same cannot be permitted to stand. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The action of the Pension Department dated 3/3/2022 adjusting the amount of Rs.20,69,307/- filed as part of Annex.R/3 is quashed and set aside. The respondent no.4 – Principal Medical Officer, District Hospital, Paota would be free, after issuing proper notice to the petitioner, to decide the show cause notice dated 23/3/2021, which was issued to the petitioner, and is still pending, after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In case the respondents decide to proceed with the show cause notice, the needful be done by the respondents within a period of five weeks from the date of this order. At the end of five weeks, if the issue is not concluded, the amount withheld shall be paid to the petitioner with interest in accordance with law.