IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12621 of 2002 KAPILDEO NARAIN SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 03 20.3.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 2.7.2000 as affirmed in appeal by an order dated 20.9.2002. He has been visited with the recovery of sum of Rs.80, 000/-. This is stated to be the value of iron rod gone missing from the stores of which he is alleged to have been in-charge. The petitioner was issued a show-cause notice along with the copy of the Flying Squad report, on basis of which, proceeding under 55A of the Central Civil Service Classification Control and Appeal were initiated. The petitioner filed his reply to the same on 28.9.2001, appended at Annexure-15. Though, he did make a claim for certain documents, but it is apparent from the show- cause that he has filed a detailed reply on merits with dates, facts and figures. He was, therefore, obviously not prejudiced in any manner by non supply of any document that he has claimed. Based on his reply, the authorities on 25.1.2002 sought certain additional clarification from him. The petitioner again replied on 12.2.2002, copy 2 whereof on record at Annexure-16. This Court is again satisfied from the same that the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation of the clarification sought from him and cannot be said to have been prejudiced in any manner, then followed the order of punishment. His appeal has also been rejected. An order for recovery of money is a minor punishment. In imposing a minor punishment all that is required is to give a show-cause notice and adequate consideration of the cause shown. The fairness on part of the respondents is apparent when they made available to the petitioner, a copy to the Flying Squad report also and after considering the cause shown by him first, they sought further clarification from him. The petitioner, therefore, was given two adequate opportunities. His case was then considered and the final orders passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to persuade this Court by inviting the Court on to the facts of the matter to allege that the petitioner was being made answerable for what was more than his alleged liability. This Court in exercise of its power under Article-226 is only concerned with the decision making process. Whether the process of decision making was in consonance with law and the delinquent had a fair and reasonable opportunity to meet the case against him. The 3 Court shall not sit as an appellate authority to enter into the arena and thicket of facts to reappraise evidence to arrive at a conclusion whether the order was sustainable on facts or not. This Court, therefore, finds no merit in this writ application. The writ application is dismissed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)