IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5241 of 2006 DEVENDRA SINGH, son of late Ram Bilash Singh, resident of village & P.O. Kobil, P S – Islampur, District – Nalanda. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Secretary, Irrigation Department, Govt. of Bihar. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Gaya Division, Gaya. 4. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Gaya Division. 5. The Assistant Engineer, Minor Irrigation Sub-Division-4, Gaya. 6. The Assistant Engineer, Minor Irrigation Sub-Division-3, Gaya. ----------- For the petitioner: M/S. Rajeev Kumar Singh and Alok Kumar Singh. For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, JC to AAG-6. ----- 04. 22.11.2010 Petitioner was a Ring Assistant who is stated to have now retired in the year 2008. While he was still in service a sum of Rs.19,150/- came to be fixed against him as his part of share along with two other employees when certain parts of the drilling machine went missing and were unaccounted for. The total liability was worked out and were to be recoverable equally from the three employees in question. One of the primary challenge to the order contained in Annexure-1 on behalf of the petitioner is that this responsibility has come to be fixed without any show cause notice or enquiry. No doubt an inventory was drawn up of the missing parts but nothing beyond that was done in terms of asking for an explanation from the petitioner in the circumstances under which it went missing. According to him, the order of recovery has civil consequences for him and no order of such kind can be passed without an opportunity of hearing. Counsel for the State has filed counter affidavit but no 2 enquiry report or report of the enquiry committee as such was annexed with the counter affidavit. A direction therefore was given to file a supplementary counter affidavit along with supporting material. Unfortunately there is nothing on record which would show that an enquiry of any kind or show cause was ever issued to the petitioner. What has been annexed with the supplementary are the various communications of the so called inventory report prepared at the spot. Taking cue from the annexure contained in Annexure-B counsel for the petitioner submits that there are materials to show that parts of the drilling machine had been taken away for repairs by the Mistri in question and it was never returned. How the petitioner becomes liable is a moot question which is required to be answered. Whatever be the factual position and the circumstances, one thing is apparent that liability has been mechanically fixed on the petitioner and two other persons, who were supposed to be Incharge of the Drill and this has been in a mechanical fashion without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on the count. If Annexure-B which is an official document is correct then respondents ought to have further pursued the matter with the authority where spare parts or equipments had been taken away for the so-called repairs. Since the petitioner was not given an opportunity before fixing the liability vide Annexure-1, it requires interference and the same is quashed. It is, however, left open to the respondents that if law permits, they can proceed against the petitioner provided they follow the principle of natural justice. 3 The exercise if it is required to be carried out, must be carried out and completed within a period of six months from the date of communication / production of a copy of this order, in view of the fact that petitioner has retired in the year 2008. Writ application is allowed with the above direction. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)