W.A. No.308/2011 12.9.2011 We have heard both sides. The charge in the departmental inquiry against the petitioner- appellant was (i) that he was negligent in performing his duties, and (ii) because of his negligence loss has been caused to the respondents. (iii) Accordingly the loss is being recovered from the appellant. Since the appellant who was the Accountant and one Rampal Pandey who was the Cashier, were both found equally responsible for the negligence which has resulted in the loss, therefore, the loss caused has been ordered to be recovered in equal shares from the both. The negligence attributed to the appellant and Rampal Pandey is that they were sent to collect the cash along with a peon who was sent as an escort, obviously for securing safe transit of cash; but after collecting the cash from the Bank, the appellant and R.P. Pandey decided to carry the cash in a brief case on a scooter between the two of them and disregarding the security aspect, left the peon to go back on a rickshaw or cycle separately. On way back, some antisocial elements intercepted the on the strength of fire-arm and looted the cash which was kept in the brief case. The amount was Rs. 2,39,593/-. Accordingly, recovery of Rs.1,19,796.50 has been ordered from the appellant and equal amount has been ordered to be recovered from the Cashier R.P. Pandey. The learned Single Judge has declined to interfere in the recovery although, he has quashed the order of compulsory retirement along with the suspension order and has directed that the appellant should be treated to have worked till the age of superannuation and to have retired on attaining the age of superannuation. The learned Single Judge has also directed that all salary and allowances, including the pay for the suspension period to 1 be paid to the appellant after deducting the pension and subsistence allowance already paid. We do not see, that on what legal basis a Writ Court can be requested to quash the recovery of the loss caused to the employer by negligence of the employee, who dispensed with the part of the security arrangement. In the circumstances, there is no good reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. (Sushil Harkauli) (U.C. Maheshwari) Acting Chief Justice Judge ac/AK 2