Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Ayub Khan, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

2. Writ petition is directed against order dated 28.4.2000 whereby Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Bulandshahar has passed order for recovery of Rs. 15147/- alongwith 14% interest from petitioner pursuant to an audit objection.

3. It is contended that aforesaid payment was made to petitioner after accepting his leave travelling concession and represent the expenses incurred under the said head. Neither any inquiry was conducted nor any show-cause notice was issued and even otherwise there was no provision for demanding any interest also but straightway on the basis of audit objection, impugned order has been passed which is patently illegal.

4. This Court time and again held that an order for recovery passed against an employee results in civil consequences and without complying principle of natural justice such an order cannot be passed.

5. It is stressed that impugned recovery has been initiated without issuing any show-cause notice or giving opportunity to petitioner and, therefore, it is in utter violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for petitioner further urged that had the petitioner been afforded opportunity, he would show to the authorities concerned itself, that, there is no error as alleged, and, no amount has been wrongly or excessively paid, and, therefore, no recovery is permissible or desirable. It is lastly contended that in any case, the amount received by petitioner, allegedly in excess, cannot be recovered since there is no element of fraud or misrepresentation on his part and, therefore, in view of various authorities of this Court and the Apex Court, no recovery can be given effect.

6. In substance, there are two submissions, which have to be considered by this Court:

(1) Whether recovery of an amount, alleged to have been paid in excess, to an employee cannot be affected by the employer, unless the (the employer) can show that there is an element of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of employees concerned. In other words, if there is no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of employee, whether an amount, paid in excess to an employee, can be recovered?

(2) Where the order of recovery has been passed, without issuing any show-cause notice or giving opportunity, can it sustain?

7. I propose to consider question No. 1 first. Petitioner has sought to fortify his submissions that unless there is an element of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of concerned employee, a recovery of alleged excess paid amount cannot be effected, placed reliance on certain authorities of this Court as also the Apex Court which are a Division Bench decision of this Court in B.N. Singh v. State of U.P. and another, 1979 ALJ 1184, a Full Bench judgment in Surya Deo Mishra v. State of U.P., 2006(1) ADJ 467 (FB) and Apex Court’s decisions in Shyam Babu Verma and another v. Union of India and others, 1994(2) SCC 521, Gabriel Saver Fernandes and others v. State of Karnataka and others, 1995 Suppl.(1) SCC 149, Mahmood Hasan v. State of U.P., JT 1997(1) SC 353, State of Karnataka and another v. Mangalore University Non-Teaching Employees’ Association and others, 2002(3) SCC 302, Purushottam Lal Das and others v. State of Bihar and others, 2006 (10) SCALE 1999. There are some other judgments of this Court which have followed the above authorities.

8. However, I find that there are certain direct authorities of Apex Court looking into this very question and taking a view otherwise and in the light of those binding authorities of Apex Court, which are of recent period also, I find it difficult to follow the authorities cited by the petitioner and, in my view, the later decisions of the Apex Court dealing with this question directly is a law binding on this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, I have no option but to follow the same