WP(C) 6281/2002 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner as well a s Ms. A. Chakraborty, learned counsel representing the respondents led by Mr. P. K. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, FCI. This writ petition is directed against Annexure-F order dated 10 .5.2002 by which the petitioner has been imposed with the penalty of recovery fr om pay. Such recovery is 50% of amount of Rs. 1,05,072.77, which comes to Rs. 52 ,536.39. The aforesaid order has been passed pursuant to the memorandum o f charges dated 9.10.2001 and the reply furnished by the petitioner on 16.11.200 1. In the charge sheet, apart from showing loss of URS rice in respect of FSD, D ergaon, no fault has been attributed to the petitioner. Nothing has been stated as to how the petitioner is responsible for the loss allegedly sustained. In thi s connection, the petitioner has referred to the Annexure-A and D enquiry report s dated 12.12.2000 and 5.12.2001, in which no fault was attributed to the petiti oner. Apart from the fact that the charges leveled against the petitio ner is vague and indefinite, the departmental authority before dispensing with t he requirement of conducting regular enquiry and straight way imposing the penal ty on the petitioner on the basis of the charges and the written statement of de fence did not record any reason as to why the enquiry was dispensed with. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, what has been stated is that the negligence/misconduct on the part of the petitioner being app arent on the face of the record, no formal and detailed enquiry was necessary. H owever, nothing has been stated as to what were the materials on the basis of wh ich the enquiry could be dispensed with. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on th e order dated 12.8.2008 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 5089/2002, by which un der similarly circumstances and on the basis of the aforesaid two reports, this Court interfered with the order of penalty. In the said order, two earlier decis ions of this Court rendered under similarly circumstanced i.e. one reported in 2 007 (3) GLT 910 (Bipin Rajbangshi Vs. Union of India and the other dated 25.3.20 08 (Debajit Chakraborty Vs. Union of India) have also been referred to. In view of the above, I allow this writ petition by setting asid e and quashing the impugned order dated 10.5.2002 (Annexure-F). Ms. Chakraborty, learned counsel representing the FCI submits th at the petitioner having not preferred any departmental appeal against the impug ned order, the writ petition is not maintainable. This aspect of the matter need not detain us in view of the aforesaid position of law already determined by th is Court. That apart, the writ petition having been admitted 8 years back, it wi ll not be appropriate to ask the petitioner to go to the departmental appellate authority at this stage. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to cost s.