as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there can never be any justification for the authorities to pass the impugned order that too eight years after allowing the petitioner to retire from service and permitting him to receive some benefits like E.L. encashment, provident fund settlement, etc. in the year 1995 which year also pertains to the audit report corresponding to the impugned order. Even otherwise, the impugned order was made to fall on the petitioner without even preceded by any notice so as to leave an opportunity for him to explain or clarify his position against the recovery proposed. Thus, the approach of the Board in issuing the impugned order after a long period of 8 years from the date of retirement of the petitioner, that too, without any fair opportunity to him by way of any prior notice, only suggests that the whole exercise was taken up totally without jurisdiction. In these circumstances, it must be observed here that the Board, as complained by the petitioner's counsel, is not justified in withholding the terminal/service benefits due to the petitioner. Hence, this Court, by taking note of the fact that the petitioner is now aged 77, deems it fit to issue suitable direction by allowing the writ petition.
