IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7370 of 2009 UMESHWAR PRASAD VERMA, son of Late-Ganesh Bahadur, resident of Village-Partapur, P.O.-Partapur, P.S.-Belsand, District-Sitamarhi. ……..Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Managing Director, Bihar State Ware housing Corporation, Patna, Maurya Complex, Patna. 3. Divisional Manager, Bihar State Ware housing Corporation, Patna, Maurya Complex, Patna. ………Respondents. ----------- 02. 03.07.2009 Heard the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the demand notice dated 25.08.2008(Annexure-10) issued by the Managing Director, Bihar State Ware housing Corporation, Patna whereby petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs. 21,80,630/- which is an alleged amount equivalent to which wheat was misappropriated by him. Petitioner submits that no proceedings had been initiated to arrive at this finding. Petitioner was not given any adequate opportunity to defend himself nor was any evidence taken in this regard. On self assumed basis the demand is being made which is most arbitrary. Learned counsel for the Bihar State Ware housing Corporation has appeared and states that there was an enquiry in this regards and it is pursuant to that enquiry that this demand has been made. 2 This Court feels that even if what is said by the learned counsel for the Bihar State Ware housing Corporation is correct, enquiry can only be basis for starting proceeding. Petitioner would still have the right to show that the enquiry report which has to be disclosed to him is not correct. Petitioner can not be proceeded against without granting him opportunity of hearing as the consequence of this order is grave and civil in nature. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order as contained in Annexure-10 and direct the Respondent Managing Director to initiate proceedings as against the petitioner and after fully offering opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case come to rational findings in this regards and then proceed in accordance with law. Let it be noted that the petitioner does not press for any other relief. With these observations and directions, Annexure-10 is quashed. The wit application is allowed to the extent stated above. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)