WP(C) 5985/2002 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Smti. B. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. The Food Corporation o f India and its officers are represented by Mr. MK Choudhury, learned senior cou nsel. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 29.8.2002 (Annexure-3) of the Senior Regional Manager of the FCT, whereby an order for recovery of Rs.1,90,881 .56 (Rupees one lakh ninety thousand eight hundred eighty one and paise fifty s ix) only from the petitioner has been passed on the allegation that the petition er, while functioning as AG-II(D) at Shed No.3/4, FSD, City Depot, Guwahati for the period from 6-2-96 to 31-7-96 had caused storage loss of rice at the depot. Enquiry into the misconduct was dispensed with by the respondents by resorting t o Regulation 60(i)(b) of the FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the explanation fur nished by the delinquent on 10-1-2002 (Annexure-2) was never considered by the r espondents and the impugned order has been passed without application of mind to the relevant aspect of the allegation. It is pointed out that although the peti tioner served in the storage depot for a period of five months from 6-2-96 to 31 -7-96, the impugned recovery has been ordered by taking note of loss of rice sto cks, received during the year 1995, when the petitioner was not even posted in t he storage depot. 4. Smti. Dutta submits that if the delinquent would have been afforded an o pportunity by holding an enquiry, to explain the losses, there would have been n o occasion to attribute the loss to the petitioner’s account. 5. It is also pointed out by the petitioner that the issue raised in the pr esent proceeding is squarely covered by an earlier decision of this Court in Bip in Rajbongshi vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2007 (3) GLT 910 which was followed by this Court in several other cases including in the case of Pabitra K r. Goswami vs. Union of India & Ors. ordered on 11-10-2007 [WP(C) No. 4131/2001] . Accordingly it is submitted that the present case also be disposed of in light of the said earlier decision(s) of this Court. 6. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the pres ent case is covered by the earlier decision of this Court in Bipin Rajbongshi (S upra) and Pabitra Kr. Goswami (Supra). 7. Considering the above decision(s) of this Court, the contention raised b y the petitioner is found worthy of acceptance. Accordingly, the impugned recove ry order dated 29-8-2002 (Annexure-3) is set aside and quashed. The interim orde r passed on 20-9-2002 merges with the today’s final order. 8. The writ petition stands allowed.