IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15482 of 2010 SUDEEN DAS @ SUDIN DAS, SON OF LATE YAMUNA DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DAULATPUR, P.S. ATHMAL GOLA, DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE BEVERAGE CORPORATION LTD., VIDYUT BHAWAN,-II, FIRST FLOOR, JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU ROAD, PATNA THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE BIHAR STATE BEVERAGE CORPORATION LTD., VIDYUT BHAWAN,-II, FIRST FLOOR, JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, THE BIHAR STATE BEVERAGE CORPORATION LTD., VIDYUT BHAWAN,-II, FIRST FLOOR, JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU ROAD, PATNA. ----------- 04. 08.10.2010 Counsel for the petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit, which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar State Beverage Corporation Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). 3. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No.1226 dated 28.4.2010, Annexure-5 passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation, whereunder after considering the show cause reply of the petitioner he has been asked to share the burden of loss suffered by the Motihari depot to the extent of 60% of the loss amounting to Rs.2,03,949.49/-. The Assistant Sri Suresh Prasad has been asked to share 40% of the loss amounting to Rs.1,35,966.32/- .Aforesaid loss has been calculated on the basis of the audit report contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. Perusal of the audit report indicates that thereunder the period of service rendered by each of the Depot Manager and the Assistant has been indicated along with stock position during their tenure. - 2 - 4. With reference to the audit report, Annexure-A it is submitted on behalf of the Corporation that there was loss in the depot only during the period between 4.6.2009 to 25.7.2009 when the petitioner was the depot incharge, such statement of the counsel for the Corporation is being disputed by the counsel for the petitioner with reference to the chart prepared in the case of Suresh Prasad, as according to the counsel for the petitioner even during the period when Sri Suresh Prasad was acting as incharge, there was loss in the depot. With reference to the two charts prepared in the case of petitioner and Sri Suresh Prasad, the authorities have concluded that there was loss in the depot during the tenure of the petitioner and Sri Suresh Prasad when he was acting incharge. In appreciation of such loss both have been saddled with the loss to the extent of 60% and 40% respectively. Counsel submitted that even accepting the audit figures, though audit was conducted behind the back of the petitioner, he cannot be held responsible for the loss for the entire period between 4.6.2009 to 25.7.2009, as in compliance of the order posting him in Motihari depot petitioner came to Motihari depot on 8.6.2009 but the then acting incharge Sri Suresh Prasad did not hand over charge to him and continued to discharge the function of the depot incharge. Such fact was also reported to the higher authorities of the Corporation but when Sri Prasad did not hand over charge to the petitioner he left the depot on 24.7.2009, as such he may be asked to bear the burden for the period between 8.6.2009 to 24.7.2009 only and not for the entire period i.e. 4.6.2009 to 25.7.2009. - 3 - 5. Counsel for the Corporation in rejoinder, however, pointed out that there is nothing on record of the Corporation to suggest that petitioner ever made report to the superior authorities of the Corporation that Sri Suresh Prasad is not handing over charge to him. He further submitted that as petitioner has deliberately not taken over charge he is responsible for the period during which he remained in the depot. 6. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the Corporation as also having perused the audit report and the averments made in the writ petition and the counter affidavit, I am of the view that as there is nothing on the record of the Corporation to suggest that petitioner reported the matter to the superior authorities of the Corporation that acting depot incharge Sri suresh Prasad is not handing over charge to him, in the circumstances, he has to bear the burden of loss suffered in the depot during the period of his posting i.e. 8.6.2009 to 24.7.2009 and as it is admitted position that Sri Suresh Prasad did not hand over charge to the petitioner, the burden of loss should be shared by both in equal measure and to that extent the Managing Director should pass appropriate order duly modifying his order dated 28.4.2010, Annexure-5 after hearing Sri Suresh Prasad. With the observation and direction aforesaid, the writ application is disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)