ORDER : The instant writ petition has been filed seeking the following main relief : “to issue a Writ or Order, direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in recovering the amount of Rs.58,878/- said to have been towards oil shortage from the salary of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, utter violation of principles of natural justice, in violation of Regulations 11 & 12 of APSRTC Employees (CC&A) Regulation, 1967 and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and to pass…..” 2. The brief case of the petitioner: As claimed by the petitioner in the writ affidavit, he was joined in the 1 st Respondent Corporation as a Mechanic Grade -II. His services were regularized way back in the year 1991. Subsequently, he was promoted on 02.08.2008 to the post of Oil Depot Clerk from the post of ADC and posted at 3 rd respondent Depot. Petitioner further escalated as Deputy Superintendent (T) on 15.05.2016 and posted at Sattenapalle Deport, lastly transferred to the 4 th respondent Depot. 3. It is further stated that, 1 st respondent Corporation Audit team inquired about the 3 rd respondent Depot on the cause that, alleged irregularities in maintaining the oil stock relating to the old periods and traced out that, there was a shortage of 30 to 65 litres of oil and also RC oil 39 litres in the 3 rd respondent depot .The Respondent authorities quantified the loss of amount as Rs.58,878/- for shortage of oils against the petitioner. 4. The petitioner further states that, the respondent authorities on the premise that, as the petitioner was in charge of the oil wing of the corporation, they came to the conclusion that, the petitioner was responsible for shortage of oil and straight away deducted an amount of Rs 2,500/- from the salary of the petitioner. The said fact was noticed by the petitioner on seeing his December, 2016 monthly pay slip only. The said fact was noticed by the petitioner on seeing his December, 2016 monthly pay slip only. In Nutshell, the Sum and substances of the case of the petitioner is that, the respondent corporation authorities without issuing any prior notice or conducting an enquiry and without crystalising the petitioner’s specific role in the alleged shortage of oils, unilaterally proposing on their own and deducting the partial amount from the petitioner’s salary is illegal, arbitrary and also contrary to the regulations 11 &12 of APSRTC Employees (CC&A) Regulation,1967 besides violation of principles of natural justice. 5. The Brief case of the Respondents Corporation: The Respondents Corporation filed it’s counter admitting the petitioner’s appointment and his promotion and also his place of works etc. The respondents Corporation mainly contended that, as the petitioner is the only responsible person for maintenance of stocks of oil, while he was discharging his duties as Depot Clerk(Oils). Thus, recovery was affected in the monthly salary of December, 2016 payable on 01.01.2017 (1 month advance in recovery). 6. It is relevant to note that, this Court on 15.2.2017 granted interim stay against the recovery of amounts from the salary of the petitioner. The said interim orders are still subsisting as now also. 7. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri V.Padmanabha Rao, as well learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents at length and also gone through the material on record. 8. Consideration of the Court: Admittedly, the petitioner is an employee working in the 1 st respondent Corporation. The 1 st Respondent Corporation employees conditions of services comes under the ambit of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant regulations are extracted here under: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967. PART – IV Discipline – Penalties 8. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant regulations are extracted here under: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967. PART – IV Discipline – Penalties 8. Penalties: (1) The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reason and as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon an employee namely: (i) censure: (ii) Withholding of the privilege of free passes or privilege ticket orders or both for travel on the railway or the bus services of the Corporation, as the case may be, in the case of employees to whom such privilege or privileges are admissible; (iii) fine, in the case of persons for whom such penalty is permissible under these Regulations, vide sub-clause (3); (iv) withholding of increments; (v) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by an employee’s negligence or breach of orders; (vi) suspension where a person has already been suspended under Regulation 18 pending enquiry into his conduct, to the extent considered necessary by the authority imposing the penalty. (vii) to (ix)……… 12. Procedure for imposing penalties: (1) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in items (i) to (vi) of clause (1) of regulation 8 shall be passed except after— (a) the employee concerned is informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the allegations on which action is proposed to be taken and is given an opportunity to make any representation he may wish to make; and (b) such representation, if any, is taken into consideration by the authority imposing the penalty. The record of proceeding in such cases shall include a copy of the intimation to the employee of the proposal to take action against him, a copy of the statement of allegations communicated to him, his representation, if any, the findings arrived at on the allegation with reasons therefore and the orders passed on the case by the authority competent to impose the penalty. 9. By plain reading of the above regulations, which clearly envisaged in Regulation 8(V) relating to the recovery from pay of the whole (or) part of any pecuniary loss caused to the corporation. 9. By plain reading of the above regulations, which clearly envisaged in Regulation 8(V) relating to the recovery from pay of the whole (or) part of any pecuniary loss caused to the corporation. As such in the case of recovery of amount from the salary of employee Respondent Authorities duty bound to issue prior notice and to supply the relevant documents, thereafter by giving an opportunity to the concerned then only proceed to pass the penalties against the employees. 10. Whereas, in the instant case apparently, the 1 st respondent – Corporation not pleaded in it’s counter that, they followed the above stated procedures before deducting an amount from the salary of the petitioner. In the absence of procedural pre-requisites, straight away recovering the amount from the salary of the petitioner is unknown to law, as well as hit by the gross violation of principles of natural justice. 11. Importance of Principles of Natural Justice: The adherence to principles of Natural Justice as recognized by all civilized states is of supreme importance when the any adjudicating Authority embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. Natural Justice is a common law concept that emphasise on fair, equal and impartial delivery of justice. It has been derived from the words ‘jus-naturale’ and ‘lex-naturale’ which emphasize the principles of natural justice, natural law, and equity. 12. There are mainly twin Principles of Natural Justice, which are Nemo Judex In Causa Sua and Audi Alteram Partem A. Nemo Judex In Causa Sua – It means that, no one should be a judge in his own case because it leads to the rule of biases. B. Audi Alteram Partem – It means that, no person can be condemned or punished by the Court without having a fair opportunity of being heard. 13. It is apt to state that, right from the inception, the principles of Natural Justice followed in our ancient days starting from village Panchayats to emperor’s Assembly. In this context, the law is well settled by the Five Judges Bench of Apex Court in A.K Kraipak v. Union of India, [ (1969) 2 SCC 262 ] in it’s unequivocal words held that, no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing/opportunity. In this context, the law is well settled by the Five Judges Bench of Apex Court in A.K Kraipak v. Union of India, [ (1969) 2 SCC 262 ] in it’s unequivocal words held that, no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing/opportunity. The relevant portion, in the above judgment, reads as under: “The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it. The concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. In the past it was thought that it included just two rules namely (1) no one shall be a judge in his own case (Nemo debet esse judex propria causa) and (2) no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem). Very soon thereafter a third rule was envisaged and that is that quasi- judicial enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably. But in the course of years many more subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of natural justice. Till very recently it was the opinion of the courts that unless the authority concerned was required by the law under which it functioned to act judicially there was no room for the application of the rules of natural justice. The validity of that limitation is now questioned. If the purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice one fails to see why those rules should be made inapplicable to administrative enquiries. Often times it is not easy to draw the line that demarcates administrative enquiries from quasi- judicial enquiries. Enquiries which were considered administrative at one time are now being considered as quasi-judicial in character. Arriving at a just decision is the aim of both quasi-judicial enquiries as well as administrative enquiries. An unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may have more far reaching effect than a decision in a quasi-judicial enquiry.”…. 14. Enquiries which were considered administrative at one time are now being considered as quasi-judicial in character. Arriving at a just decision is the aim of both quasi-judicial enquiries as well as administrative enquiries. An unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may have more far reaching effect than a decision in a quasi-judicial enquiry.”…. 14. Another Landmark Judgment in Menaka Gandhi Vs Union of India, [ 1978(1) SCC 248 ], (seven-Judges Bench) of the Supreme Court of India held that, an order that was made in contravention of the Rule of Natural Justice embodied in the maxim “audi alteram partem” is null and void. 15. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs Tulshiram Patel, [(1985)(3) SCC 398] by expending the vistas of Principles of Natural Justice held that violation of the Principles of Natural Justice is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 16. It is also well known that, the Principles of Natural Justice applicable even in the absence of expressly set out in the statutory frame also. The Apex Court vividly stated in Canara Bank vs. V K Awasthy, [ 2005(6) SCC 321 ] para 14, extracted here under: “Concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. Rules of natural justice are not rules embodied always expressly in a statute or in rules framed there under. They may be implied from the nature of the duty to be performed under a statute. What particular rule of natural justice should be implied and what its context should be in a given case must depend to a great extent on the fact and circumstances of that case, the framework of the statute under which the enquiry is held. The old distinction between a judicial act and an administrative act has withered away. Even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be consistent with the rules of natural justice. The expression "civil consequences" encompasses infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. In its wide umbrella comes everything that affects a citizen in his civil life.” 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State Bank of India and Others Vs. The expression "civil consequences" encompasses infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. In its wide umbrella comes everything that affects a citizen in his civil life.” 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State Bank of India and Others Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and Others, [ 2023(6) SCC 1 ] by scanning the anatomy of the Principles of Natural Justice and it’s extended tentacles lucidly expressed that, the principles of Natural Justice has a universal application and constitute an important fact of procedural propriety envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Rule of ‘audi alterm partem’ is recognized as being a part of the guarantee contained in Article 14. 18. Recently, in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs. Brijesh Kumar & Another, the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 28.8.2024, while dealing with the lis instituted by the U.P State Road Transport Corporation in respect of terminating the services of the contractual employee, held that Principles of Natural Justice should have complied. 19. That being the position in respect of salutary principles formulated by our Indian Legal System, now reverting to the case on hand, the 1 st Respondent Corporation authorities without following the procedure enunciated in the A.P State Road Transport Corporation Employee(Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 coupled with the fact that, non-adhering the Principles of Natural Justice, straightaway deducting the amounts from the salary of the petitioner/ employee is per-se illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside. 20. Before parting with the case, this Court given the phenomenal importance to the Principles of Natural Justice, in adjudicating the cases in day-in and day-out, by the judicial, quasi – Judicial administrative authorities in vivid foras, should be complied the principles of Natural Justice in its true letter and spirit then only, it is paving the way to reach the objects and intendment of our Indian Constitution. 21. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the settled legal position laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in catena of decisions referred above, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the action of the respondents in recovering the amount from the salary of the petitioner, without issuing any prior notice and without following the procedure prescribed is illegal, arbitrary and hit by principles of natural justice. 22. 22. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with the following directions: (a) Directing the respondents to return the amount recovered from the salary of the petitioner within a period of three (03) months. (a) It is made clear that, the respondents are at liberty to initiate appropriate steps against the petitioner, if so advised, in accordance with law only. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.