“13.Therefore, there can be no quarrel for recovering the said amount of Rs.93,129/- under the third head. However, in respect of other heads, namely, 1, 2 and 4, the petitioner is disputing the said amounts, as no such loss has occurred and on what basis these calculations have been made by the respondents have also not been communicated to the petitioner and in fact before making such calculations, the petitioner has not been put on notice. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the petitioner had given an undertaking before the retirement to the respondents that he would accept the recovery, if any noticed for the unaudited period, i.e., from 01.07.2007 to 30.11.2007 such undertaking ipso facto, would not give a free hand without giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner by putting him under notice and after ascertaining his views. The calculations or arrival at of the figure under various heads ought to have been made. Here, in this case, there is no proof to show that before the impugned order, such notice was issued. No such procedure was adopted by the 1st respondent for arriving at such a conclusion under head Nos.1, 2 and 4 under the impugned order. Therefore, in that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order in respect of head Nos.1, 2 and 4 is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed.”
