ORDER :

Saurabh Lavania, J.

1. Heard Sri M.K. Dixit, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the office memorandum dated 13.09.2000 (Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition) whereby his representation with regard to recovery of Rs. 7020.50/-, has been rejected. The petitioner has also challenged the recovery order/letter dated 12.05.1999, pursuance to which the process of recovery was initiated against the petitioner.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Seenchpal (Patrol), in the Irrigation and Planning Division of Irrigation Department at Barelli. Thereafter in the year 1969, the petitioner was promoted on the post of lhap i;Zos{kd (Amin) at Balrampur. In the year 1974, the petitioner was transferred from Balrampur to Tubewell Division, Bahraich and he remained posted at Bahraich till 1983. Thereafter, he was transferred from Tubewell Division Bahraich to Tubewell Division, Faizabad and he remained posted at Faizabad till November 1990. In the month of December 1990, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Ziledar and on the said post, at different places the petitioner worked till the age of superannuation i.e. 31.07.2000.

4. While the petitioner was working under opposite party no. 4 i.e. The Executive Engineer, Minor Lift Canal, Sub Division Barabanki (Division Lucknow), the audit inspection was carried out and in audit, an amount to the tune of Rs. 7020.50/- was found due against the petitioner.

5. Pursuant to the audit report/objection, opposite party no. 2 i.e. Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division, Bahraich, issued a letter dated 12.05.1999 in relation to recovery of the amount from the petitioner with copy to the Assistant Engineer, Minor Lift Canal, Sub Division Barabanki (Division Lucknow) for necessary action.

After receiving the letter 12.05.1999, the petitioner submitted a reply dated 07.06.1999 and thereafter another representation dated 12.07.1999 was submitted by the petitioner with regard to the recovery in question. From the aforesaid document on record, as Annexure Nos. 4 and 5 to the writ petition, it appears that in the same the petitioner has specifically stated that (i) recovery should be imposed on tubewell operator, (ii) proceedings of recovery are ex-parte, (iii) no document was provided in relation to recovery of Rs. 7020.50/- (iv) no amount is due against the petitioner (v) he is not liable to pay the amount. Thereafter, the opposite party no. 4 sent the letters dated 28.02.1999 and 07.04.2000, in relation to recovery of amount from the petitioner, to the Executive Engineer, Tubewell Khand, Bahraich stating therein that no reply has been received in regard to recovery of Rs. 7020.50/- from the petitioner and also requested thereby to dispose of the issue of recovery of Rs. 7020.50/- from the petitioner. It appears that letters were written keeping in view the date of retirement of the petitioner i.e. 31.07.2000. A copy of the said letter dated 07.04.2000 was also given to the petitioner on 13.04.2000.

On 20.7.2000, the petitioner submitted a representation through proper channel. In the representation dated 20.07.2000 the petitioner reiterated his stand taken in the representation dated 07.06.1999 and 12.07.1999.

The opposite party no. 2 i.e. Executive Engineer, Tubewell Khand, Bahraich vide order dated 13.09.2000 rejected the representation of the petitioner dated 07.06.1999 preferred against the recovery of Advance Misc. of Rs. 7020.50/-. In the order dated 13.09.2000, the petitioner has been held guilty for not performing his duty.

Assailing the order dated 12.05.1999 and office memorandum 13.09.2000, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to passing of the recovery order dated 12.05.1999, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as we