JUDGMENT :

URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order of respondent No. 5-Chief Officer, Municipal Council dated 31/12/2015 imposing recovery of Rs.25,00,010/- (Rs. Twenty five lacs and ten).

3. The petitioner was working as a Tax Superintendent with the respondent No. 5-Chief Officer, Municipal Council. He was appointed on 16/04/1968 and retired on 30/06/2007. As per the contention of the petitioner, he had rendered blemish-less service throughout his career. He was also appreciated for his work. Despite inadequate staff being deputed in his department, he had performed his duty with utmost honesty and integrity.

4. On 30/06/2007, he retired from service due to superannuation. After eight years of his retirement i.e. on 31/12/2015, a notice was issued to him by respondent No. 5-Chief Officer, Municipal Council calling the petitioner to deposit Rs.25,00,010/-. Before this notice show cause notice was also issued to him on 17/06/2011. He replied the said notice on 20/06/2011. The respondent No. 5-Chief Officer, Municipal Council had held that the explanation given by the petitioner was not satisfactory and hence charge-she