ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Solicitor General of India. 2. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the order No. I.X-2/2012-SZ-EC-2 dated 23.05.2015 issued by the Additional Director General, South Zone, CRPF, Hyderabad in so far as it relates to the petitioner is illegal, and arbitrary apart from being violative of the principles of natural justice and also the consequential order No. M.II.1/2015-Esst-2-GC AVD dated 03.07.2015 and also Order No. I.X.1/2015-Esst-2-GC AVD dated 29.03.2016 issued by the DIGP, Group Centre, CRPF, Avadi, Chennai, directing the Petitioner to remit the amount of Rs. 60,022.00 are also illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same. 3. The Case of the Petitioner in brief, is as follows: a) The Petitioner is working as Second in Command in the office of the Inspector General of Police, Southern Sector, CRPF, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and while working in 110 BN, petitioner was transferred to the Group Centre (GC), Chennai, Avadi and was assigned the duties of Deputy Commandant (Store), Accounts Officer including the Additional Charge of Vice-Chairman, Parivar Kalyan Gas Agency (PKGA). b) Petitioner only held the office of Vice-Chairman in different spells and up to October 2009 and some period in November 2009 and thereafter charge was given to other officers. c) Allegedly, there were discrepancies from the period 2006 to 2010 and during that period as many as 06 ADIGPs/DIGPs as Chairman, 13 Assistant/Deputy Commandants as Vice-Chairman, 10 Inspector /Sis as Manager, 04 Head Constables as gas NCO held the post in PKGA, Chennai and the Petitioner was one of the Vice-Chairman. d) A court enquiry was already ordered by the DIGP, Chennai vide Office Order No. I.X.8/12-EC-II dated 06.06.2012 to enquire into variation of stocks, improper maintenance of Parivar Kalyan Gas Agency, Avadi, Chennai from the period 2005 and to fix up responsibility of the officials concerned and the Court of Enquiry found that more than Rs. 12 Lakhs were misappropriated by the staff of PKGA in a span of about 4 years from 2006 to the year 2010. e) Additional Director General, South Zone, CRPF, Hyderabad issued order No. IX-2/2012-SZ-EC-2 dated 23.05.2015 for recovery of amount misappropriated, from the officers/personnel who held charge and write off of those who retired from service as per the report of the Court of Enquiry. e) Additional Director General, South Zone, CRPF, Hyderabad issued order No. IX-2/2012-SZ-EC-2 dated 23.05.2015 for recovery of amount misappropriated, from the officers/personnel who held charge and write off of those who retired from service as per the report of the Court of Enquiry. f) Based on the order of ADG, Hyderabad, the DIGP, GC, CRPF, Avadi, Chennai issued an order no. M.II.1/2015-Esst-2-GC AVD dated 03.07.2015 directing to recover Rs.60,022.40ps from the Petitioner and disciplinary action has been proposed. g) Petitioner made a representation to the Additional Director General, CRPF, South Zone, Hyderabad on 04.08.2015 requesting to drop the charges against the petitioner. The representation has been forwarded through Inspector General of Police, SS, CRPF, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad on 06.08.2015. h) The Petitioner on 11.08.2015 had requested, through an application under Right to Information, 2005 to furnish the documents in connection with court of Inquiry including COI report to IGP, SS, CRPF, and ADG, South Zone and the same has been rejected stating that the RTI Act under section 24(1) restricted the access of any information and informed petitioner that there was no corruption in his case. i) Further, petitioner was informed by the office of ADGP that the required document of COI based on which the final report is ordered is confidential in nature and its communication would impede the process of investigation and was denied the reasonable opportunity. j) While the investigation was still pending, the final order to recover the amount and initiation of departmental action is against fair play and in violation of natural justice and is also discriminatory as no departmental action was ordered against the other officers. k) Petitioner made a representation dated 04.08.2015 and the same has been mechanically rejected without assigning any reason. Moreover, DIGP,GC, Avadi, Chennai vide Order No. I.X.1/2015-Esst-2-GC AVD dated 31.09.2015 had directed the petitioner to remit the amount in Six Monthly Instalments. l) Petitioner made a Representation dated 07.10.2015 to DGP, CRPF, Directorate, New Delhi but there has been no reply so far. m) The Court of Inquiry report, on the statement of some witnesses, stated that all records are changed and manipulated during the year 2010. A special audit of all records of PKGA from period 01.01.2006 to 30.09.2008 was conducted vide O/O No. A.XI.70/2008-EC-IV dated 13.10.2008 and no audit board observed any manipulation and change/overwriting of records. m) The Court of Inquiry report, on the statement of some witnesses, stated that all records are changed and manipulated during the year 2010. A special audit of all records of PKGA from period 01.01.2006 to 30.09.2008 was conducted vide O/O No. A.XI.70/2008-EC-IV dated 13.10.2008 and no audit board observed any manipulation and change/overwriting of records. n) As per clause 3.2 of CRPF Co-operative Shop Rules, the Vice Chairman should be Second-in-Command/Deputy Commandant (DC) (Adm) but petitioner was Deputy Commandant (DC) for (Stores) and as per clause 14(a) of L.P.Gas Agency, the duties of Chairman and Vice -Chairman will be as per the CRPF Co-operative Shop Rules and as such chairman is DIG, who is competent person with regard to administrative, disciplinary and other functions and the function of Vice Chairman is only supervisory in nature and that the main function of the Vice Chairman is to manage the affairs of the Gas Agencies and it is Manager who has to manage the daily affairs of Gas Agency. o) The order by 3rd Respondent dated 23.05.2015 has not given the Petitioner a chance to defend his case and his detailed statement had not been considered by COI. Further, the COI stated, petitioner had not taken any action against the erring staff is wrong, as he had recommended action against the Manager and other staff to 5th Respondent, who is competent authority to take action. The COI had not properly appreciated the facts and passed the order mechanically. p) Neither the copy of the Enquiry Report nor the calculation details have been furnished to the petitioner and without giving him an opportunity to defend, it was ordered to recover amount of Rs.60,022.40 ps and to initiate departmental action. Hence this Writ Petition. 4. The case of the Respondents, in brief, as per the counter filed, is as follows: a) The special audit, conducted by GC, CRPF, Avadi vide officer order No. A.XI-1/2010-EC-IV dated 09.12.2010 brought out variation of Rs. 5,90,602/-in the cash account maintained by BPCL and PKGA of GC, CRPF, Avadi. b) In order to find the reasons and fix the responsibility for improper maintenance of accounts, a Court of Inquiry was ordered vide Office Order No. I.X-2/11-EC-2 dated 06.01.11 and an embezzlement to the tune of Rs. 7,00,000/-was brought out by the Court of Inquiry. 5,90,602/-in the cash account maintained by BPCL and PKGA of GC, CRPF, Avadi. b) In order to find the reasons and fix the responsibility for improper maintenance of accounts, a Court of Inquiry was ordered vide Office Order No. I.X-2/11-EC-2 dated 06.01.11 and an embezzlement to the tune of Rs. 7,00,000/-was brought out by the Court of Inquiry. c) Since the earlier Court of Inquiry was inconclusive, another court of Inquiry was ordered vide Office Order No. I.X-8/12-EC-2 dated 06.06.2012 to enquire into variation of stocks, improper maintenance of Parivar Kalyan Gas Agency, Avadi, Chennai from the period 2005 and to fix up responsibility of the officials concerned. d) The Court of Inquiry pointed out the laxity and responsibility on number of officers during the period in which cylinders were not taken on stock, during the period from January 2006 to August 2010 and involved in the embezzlement and recommended to recover the amount from them, after conducting Departmental Enquiry. d) The Proceedings of the Court of Inquiry (COI) along with recommendations of DIGP, GC, CRPF, Avadi were sent to IGP, Southern Sector, CRPF, Hyderabad vide officer letter No. I.X-8/2012-13EC-II (PKGA) dated 30.08.2013 and the said COI was finalized by ADG, Southern Zone, CRPF, Hyderabad vide order no. I.X-2/2012-SZ-EC-2 dated 23.05.2015 with a direction to recover Rs.5,47,842/- proportionately from personnel responsible for the loss besides disciplinary action. e) The Petitioner who held the post of Vice Chairman, PGKA completely failed to exercise the proper check in maintenance of records, stocks as per rules/procedures. Hence, the petitioner was held responsible for recovery of Rs. 60,022/-. f) Despite repeated reminders issued by GC, CRPF, Avadi letter No. M.II-1/2015-Esst-2-GC-AVD dated 03.07.2015 and letters vide I.X-1/2015-Esst dated 05.08.2015 and 31.09.2015, the Petitioner had not remitted the amount. Instead, the petitioner demanded documents vide letter no. G.II-2/2015-RRS and through RTI. The Petitioner was informed to access the PKGA documents, if required, by paying personnel visit at GC, CRPF, Avadi vide letter no. I.X.1/2015-Esst-2-GC AVD dated 31.09.2015. g) The Petitioner who is in the charge of Vice Chairman, did not sign a single document pertaining to the gas agency and further, pages of cash books and stock ledgers were removed and were replaced at will. h) Against the Order of COI, petitioner submitted a representation which was rejected by ADG, CRPF, South Zone, Hyderabad vide I.X-2/2012-SE-EC.II dated 18.09.2015 and was directed to remit the amount. h) Against the Order of COI, petitioner submitted a representation which was rejected by ADG, CRPF, South Zone, Hyderabad vide I.X-2/2012-SE-EC.II dated 18.09.2015 and was directed to remit the amount. i) As laid down in para 2.5 (xxx) of Group Centra & Battalion Officer’s manual, Dy. Commandant (Stores) will carry out any other duty assigned to him by the DIGP or the Commandant Group Centre from time to time and hence the duty assigned to the petitioner is lawful and as per rule and are the duties of Vice Chairman for Gas Agency as also laid out in para 14(a), Annexure-1 of Chapter VII of Force Institution and Funds Manual, 1976. j) As per the reports of special audit and Court Of Inquiry, the misappropriation/discrepancies have taken place from 2007 to 2009 while the petitioner was performing his duties as Vice Chairman of PKGA, as the Petitioner neither checked the balance sheet drawn in the cash book by the Manager nor endorsed signatures /remarks in any of the summary. k) There is no provision to provide copy of COI report and the final orders on COI to effect recovery of loss from all staff involved were passed by ADG, CRPF, South Zone, Hyderabad vide order no. I.X-2/2012-SZ-EC-2 dated 23.05.2015 was served to the petitioner on 03.07.2015 and he had made representation dated 05.08.2015 seeking copies of documents related to the case. Hence, for the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and hence is liable to be dismissed. PERUSED THE RECORD : 5. Counter affidavit filed by the respondents, in particular, Para 8 reads as under: “8. In reply to para 12 to 18 of the affidavit, I state that the contention of the petitioner that no copy of the inquiry report was provided to him and he was not given calculation details on base of which recovery is ordered is not true. There is no provision to provide copy of Court of Inquiry (COI) report. The final orders on the Court of Inquiry (COI) to effect recovery of the loss proportionately from all the staff/officers involved were passed by ADG, CRPF, South Zone, Hyderabad vide Order No. I.X-2/2012-SZ-EC-2 dated 23/05/2015 a copy of which has already been provided to the petitioner vide this office letter No. M.II-1/2015-Estt-2-GC-AVD dated 03/07/2015. He submitted a representation dated 05/08/2015 seeking copies of documents related to the case. He submitted a representation dated 05/08/2015 seeking copies of documents related to the case. He was informed vide letter No. I.X.1/2015-Estt-2-GC AVD dated 31/09/2015 that he can have access of the documents required by him at GC Avadi as the same are voluminous and cannot be sent to him. Further the representation against the proposed recovery submitted by him was considered but rejected by the ADG, CRPF, South Zone, Hyderabad vide signal No. I.X-2/2012-SZ-EC.II dated 18/09/2015. From the facts and figures as enumerated in the preceding paragraph it can be seen that being a responsible officer and holding the charge of Vice Chairman of PKGA, he failed to ensure proper check of records produced before him for his signature and also completely failed to have proper supervision over the staff posted under him which ultimately resulted into misappropriation of such huge amounts. Therefore, the order passed for recovery of proportionate amount from the petitioner is neither illegal nor arbitrary”. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 6. The primary contention put-forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the negligence is attributed to the petitioner and recovery has been ordered without giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself and the entire exercise indicates a clear prejudging of the issue unilaterally in clear violation of principles of natural justice. 7. A bare perusal of the contents at Para 8 of the counter affidavit extracted above clearly indicates that no opportunity is provided nor notice has been issued to the petitioner prior to passing of the order of recovery against the petitioner. 8. The order dated 28.09.2015 rejecting the petitioner’s representation dated 04.08.2015, submitted by the petitioner aggrieved against the order impugned No.1.X-2/2012-SZ-EC-2, dt. 23.05.2015 reads as under: “Please refer to your application No.GII-2/2015-RPS dated 06.08.2015 forwarding therewith representation dated 04.08.2015 addressed to ADG South Zone. Your application dated 04.08.2015 forwarded to ADG South Zone vide this Hqr letter of even number dated 18.08.2015. South Zone HQr Vide Signal No.I-X-2/2012-SZ-EC-II dated 18.09.2015 has intimated that the above representation has been rejected by the competent authority being devoid of merit and desired to implement the order issued vide order dated 23.05.2015. For information please.” 9. The request of petitioner under RTI Act for providing required documents had also been rejected vide Order dated 18.09.2015 as borne on record. 10. Para 5 of the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner reads as under: “5. For information please.” 9. The request of petitioner under RTI Act for providing required documents had also been rejected vide Order dated 18.09.2015 as borne on record. 10. Para 5 of the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner reads as under: “5. The allegation that I was the Vice Chairman of the Parivar Kalyan Gas Agency most of the times during the period from 2005 to 2010[para- 4 of counter] is absolutely untrue. It is necessary to submit here that as per para 2.3.2 of Group Centre and Battalion Officers Manual [GC AND BN] of Crpf,1976 corrected up to 30/11/2011, Commandant is the de facto Vice Chairman and will supervise and be responsible for the management of Co-Operative Shops as well as Gas Agency. When the Commandant is not available, the Deputy Commandant (Administration) is in charge of the Agency. It is only when he was not available, I was given temporary charge of the same as DC [Store]. This fact has not been brought out and I have not been given an opportunity of bringing out the same in spite of requesting number of times and also reiterating that I was never been appointed as the Vice Chairman[ VC] of PKGA as there is no separate Vice chairman for Gas agency. I was not holding charge of Vice Chairman as alleged, expect for some periods as DC[Adm] was on leave. I am not responsible for mismanagement/lack of supervision as stated in the counter. In fact, as per rule, it is the Manager, the rank of inspector or sub inspector who is in charge of PKGA and as in charge, he was asked to take care of it. Therefore, the question of my concealing of any correspondence would not arise. I was appointed as the Deputy Commandant in charge of Stores.” 11. This Court opines that there cannot be any unilateral decision for recovery without there being any detailed enquiry into the subject issue by the competent authority in accordance with law, in conformity with principles of natural justice. Admittedly in the present case the consequential orders i.e., Order No.M.II.1/2015-Estt-2-GC AVD, dt. 03.07.2015 and also Order No.1.X.1/2015-Estt-2-GC AVD, dt. 29.03.2016 issued by the DIGP, Group Centre, CRPF, AVADI Chennai directing the petitioner to remit the amount of Rs.60,022.00 are based purely on the directions issued in the impugned order dt. 23.05.2015 issued by the 3rd Respondent herein. 12. Admittedly in the present case the consequential orders i.e., Order No.M.II.1/2015-Estt-2-GC AVD, dt. 03.07.2015 and also Order No.1.X.1/2015-Estt-2-GC AVD, dt. 29.03.2016 issued by the DIGP, Group Centre, CRPF, AVADI Chennai directing the petitioner to remit the amount of Rs.60,022.00 are based purely on the directions issued in the impugned order dt. 23.05.2015 issued by the 3rd Respondent herein. 12. A bare perusal of the Order impugned dt. 23.05.2015 of 3rd Respondent herein para 6(b) indicates that on the recommendation of the COI dt. 16.08.2013 the proportionate cost of Rs.60,022/- had been fixed as the amount to be recovered from the Petitioner unilaterally on the basis of the Court of enquiry held behind the back of the Petitioner without issuing show cause notice to the Petitioner in clear violation of principles of natural justice. This Court opines that there cannot be fixation of any liability irrationally upon the petitioner without even hearing the petitioner. It is clearly evident at para 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents (extracted above) that admittedly as borne on record the copy of Court of Inquiry report had not been furnished to the petitioner prior to passing the final orders dated 23.05.2015 against the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner had been denied reasonable opportunity. 13. It is the specific plea of the petitioner as averred specifically at para ‘5’ of the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner (referred to and extracted above) that the petitioner was given temporary charge of the stores only when the commandant is not available and this fact could not be brought to the notice of the concerned since the petitioner was not provided with any reasonable opportunity to put-forth the same and further that along with the petitioner there were other 18 supervisory officers but they were all let off and the petitioner alone was singled out and the petitioner was called upon to remit the amount initiating disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner which is highly discriminatory. 14. The Court vide its interim orders dt. 11.08.2016 granted interim suspension of the impugned order so far as the Petitioner is concerned and the said orders were made absolute vide orders of this Court dt.06.02.2020. 15. 14. The Court vide its interim orders dt. 11.08.2016 granted interim suspension of the impugned order so far as the Petitioner is concerned and the said orders were made absolute vide orders of this Court dt.06.02.2020. 15. This Court opines that the amount quantified to be recovered from the petitioner is without notice to the petitioner without the petitioner even understanding the basis for arriving at the said figure of Rs.60,022/- on the alleged ground that the loss is caused to the Respondents due to lack of supervision by the petitioner. This Court opines that there is no justification in arriving at such an unilateral conclusion without issuing notice to the petitioner and the same is in clear violation of principles of natural justice. 16. Taking into consideration the above referred facts and circumstances of the case the writ petition is allowed and Order No.1.X-2/2012-SZ-EC-2, dt. 23.05.2015, of the 3rd Respondent and the consequential Order No.M.II.1/2015-Estt-2-GC AVD, dt. 03.07.2015 and also Order No.1.X.1/2015-Estt-2-GC AVD, dt. 29.03.2016 issued by the DIGP, Group Centre, CRPF, AVADI Chennai are set aside. It is however made clear that it is open for the Respondents to proceed against the Petitioner if they so desire in accordance with law and in conformity with principles of natural justice. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.