IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7657 of 1995 BINOY KUMAR SINHA SON OF LATE RAM DULAR SARAN SINGH RESIDENT OF 7/C1- ANAND PURI, WEST BORING CANAL ROAD, PATNA -1 P.S. SHREE KRISHNAPURI, DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SONE CADA, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, 6TH FLOOR, SONE BHAWAN, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA -1. 3. AREA DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER-CUM- CHAIRMAN, SONE COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, SONE BHAWAN, 6TH FLOOR, PATNA. 4. CHIEF OF ENGINEERING SERVICES, SONE COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, SONE BHAWAN, PATNA. 5. SECRETARY, SONE COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, SONE BHAWAN, PATNA. 6. FINANCIAL ADVISOR, SONE COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, SONE BHAWAN, PATNA. 7. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SANCHAR PRAMANDAL, SCADA, SABAJPURA AGRICULTURE FARM, KHAGAUL, PATNA. 8. SHREE VIJAY KUMAR SINGH, JUNIOR ENGINEER, WIRELESS, SCADA, SONE BHAWAN, PATNA. ----------- For the Petitioner :- M/S. D. K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Chakravati Singh. For the State :- Mr. J. P. Karn, AAG IX. ------ 4 01/07/2010 A sum of Rs.29,490/- was assessed as the depreciated book value of a Maruti Van with registration No. BEQ 5319. This amount was assessed and ordered to be paid by the petitioner by respondents Sone Command Area Development Agency because undisputedly the official - 2 - vehicle in question was used by the petitioner, carried to his residence and was stolen from the residence is not denied or disputed. The respondents decided, therefore, to recover the depreciated value of the van from the petitioner by repeated decisions contained in Annexures- 14 and 15. The amount assessed was ordered to be recovered in 60 equal instalments as would be evident from the communication contained in annexure-21. The so called deduction from the salary was worked out to Rs.491.50 per month. Effort has been made in the writ application to show that the petitioner is an Officer of exceptional merit, totally committed and dedicated to the work of the institution and handled many important assignments and responsibility put upon him from time to time. It is also his effort to show that the liability fixed upon him for the loss of van is misdirected because the vehicle in question was the responsibility of respondent no. 8. If he had failed to ensure that the vehicle had an insurance cover and the papers were not in order the petitioner cannot be made responsible for omission on the part of yet another employee. It is also the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that there is - 3 - reflection from the records to show that no fault was found with the petitioner with regard to the theft by the police and to some extent there is similar opinion expressed by certain officials in the organization as well. But the larger question is whether the petitioner had an obligation for the loss of the property of the organization, admittedly of which he was in possession when the loss/theft took place. May be, for official business he had carried the vehicle and took it home after duty hours, but it is not denied that the vehicle was in possession of the petitioner when the loss by way of theft took place. There is an old principle of looser pays. If that is applied to the petitioner, then no amount of legal submissions or ingenuinity is going to bail him out of his liability. Another aspect which restrains this Court from interfering with the order is that the respondents have very fairly assessed the value of the Van on the book value or the depreciated value and the petitioner was asked to pay only the depreciated value of the vehicle and that too was assessed way back in the year 1995. Net value or the amount which the petitioner actually has to pay now after more than 15 - 4 - years is more notional than the actual. No case for interference with the orders in question is called for. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)