IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.4449/2008 Radheshyam s/o Sitaramji Heda Vs. Mah. State Electricity Distribution Company and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. Tiwari, Adv. Holding for Mr.Kilor, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. R.K.Deshpande, Advocate for the respondents. Coram : B.H. Marlapalle and A.H. Joshi, JJ. Dated : 21st October, 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who has retired from the employment of respondent no.1- Company. He was working as Assistant Engineer at Malegaon Sub Division. On 31.1.2006 the Vigilance Enquiry Report was submitted to respondent no.1-Company and the said report clearly states that the petitioner was responsible to recover the prescribed amount from five different floor mills as per the Head Office letter dated 18.10.2005. He was called upon to recover an amount of Rs. 20,000/- per hp motor and every floor mill was given connection for five hp motors and, therefore, every one of them was required to pay Rs. two lakhs to the respondent no.1- Company and it was the petitioner's duty to recover the same. He did not do so till he retired on 30.4.2008 and thus the Board suffered a loss of Rs. Ten lakhs. In addition, he was also to recover by way of welding charges an amount of Rs. 10,000/- which also he did not recover. On the basis of the said report, the respondent no.1-Company by its communication dated 30.4.2008 called upon the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs. 10,10,000/- and if he did not pay the same, it was made clear that it would be recovered from his pensionary dues. Undoubtedly, while effecting any such recoveries, the Board will have to consider its Service Rules and, more particularly, whether all or some of the pensionary dues could be detained or any deduction could be effected from the same and then proceed to take further action for the recovery as proposed. At the same time, if the petitioner is aggrieved and disputes the recovery, he may have his remedy in the common law. So far as this petition is concerned, we are not impressed by the submissions made by the learned counsel that the recovery sought to be made by letter dated 30.4.2008 amounts to double jeopardy and on the ground that pursuant to show cause notice dated 16.9.2005 he was already punished by stoppage of one increment. The punishment for dereliction of duty is one thing whereas the action for causing to recover the loss to the Company- Employer is quite another. Hence, this petition fails at the thresh-hold and the same is rejected summarily. JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar.