IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9374 of 2009 RABI SHANKAR PRASAD @ RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD, SON OF LATE AKHAURI NARAIN PRASAD SINGH, RETIRED SENIOR SECTION ENGINEER (P. WAY) E.C. RAILWAY, SONPUR (SARAN), RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-GANDHI NAGAR, KHADI BHANDAR CHOWK, KANHAULI, DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR. ………… Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER, E.C. RAILWAY, HAJIPUR (VAISHALI). 2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, E.C. RAILWAY, SONPUR. 3. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (ENGINEERING) E.C. RAILWAY, SONPUR. 4. THE F.A. & C.A.O. (PENSION) E.C. RAILWAY, HAJIPUR. 5. THE DIVISIONAL FINANCIAL MANAGER, E.C. RAILWAY, SONPUR (SARAN). ………… Respondents ----------- 4 23.02.2010 Heard Mr. Satish Chandra Mishra for the petitioner, and Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha for the respondents. This writ petition is directed against that part of the order dated 30.9.2008 (Annexure-1), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in O.A. No. 631 of 2005 (Ravishankar Prasad versus The Union of India & Ors), whereby he has been held responsible for not accounting for railway properties valued at Rs. 6,17,640/-, while he was working at Muzaffarpur and Sonepur. 2. We have perused the materials on record, and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was posted as Assistant Permanent Way Inspector at Muzaffarpur and Sonepur. He superannuated from the services of the Indian Railways w.e.f. 31.8.2004. Out of a sum of Rs. 1,96,330/- , Rs. 12,721/- has been 2 adjusted, and the balance sum of Rs. 1,83,609/- has to be adjusted from his post-retirement benefits. The petitioner challenged the same by preferring the aforesaid O.A. No. 631 of 2005, in which the following direction was issued: “8. After going through the matter, we do not think Rule-9 has any application to the facts of the case. He was accountable for stocks entrusted with him, and respondents were entitled to adjust sums from his DCRG after due examination. In such circumstances, we only direct that the applicant has to be advised about the final DCRG that has to be paid vis-à-vis the liabilities to which he is answerable. Communication to this effect is to be sent to him within a period of three months from today. The revised pension and arrears are also to be paid within the said period. The OA is disposed of accordingly. No costs.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner raises a grievance that no show-cause notice was issued to him, notwithstanding which the adjustment is sought to be made. 4. It appears to us that no punitive action is sought to be taken against the petitioner. It is only an adjustment. The petitioner is responsible for not accounting for the railway properties in his possession. Therefore, no show-cause notice was needed. As directed by the Tribunal, the petitioner should be provided with the details of the losses to the Railways. 5. We, therefore, do not find fault with the impugned order. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. pkj (S.K. Katriar, J.) ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )