The issuance of recovery notices must comply with prescribed service rules; failure to do so renders them invalid.

J U D G M E N T

Heard Sri. Johnson Manayani, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.T. Naveen, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation.

2. The petitioner, who was working with the 1^st respondent Corporation, has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge the recovery notices issued against him at Exts.P1 and P2. The petitioner states that the recovery notices have been issued without carrying out appropriate enquiries/ proceedings with reference to the provisions of the Service Rules and solely on the basis of the directions issued in a circular issued by the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation.

3. Sri.T. Naveen, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation has brought to the notice of this Court, the circular which has been relied on, for issuing the afore notices Ext.R1(a) produced along with the counter affidavit dated 16.11.2011. The learned Counsel would also add that the petitioner had also given undertakings to the respondent Corporation stating that if there are any liabilities, the liability could be recovered from the petitioner.

4. I have considered the afore submissions as well as the connected records.

5. This Court in W.P.(C) No. 32987 of 2019 and connected cases has considered the question as to whether the proceedings could be taken against the employees on the basis of the circular issued by the Managing Director, giving a go by to the Service Rules, holding that the steps could be initiated only with reference to the provisions of the Service Rules. It was categorically found that the circular cannot by itself be relied on for proceeding against the employees of the Corporation. 6. True, the learned Counsel for the respondent is justified in pointing out that in the afore judgment, this Court has categorically found that the principles laid out therein would not apply as against those employees who have not challenged the recovery proceedings, on account which the proceedings are concluded. But, admittedly, in the case of hand, the petitioner herein, has kept the matter pending by filing the captioned writ petition.

7. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed and therefore, Exts.P1, P2 and P8 would stand set aside, to the extent applicable to the petitioner.

The writ petition is allowed as above.