WP(C) 2320/2003 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY In challenge is the order dated 17.1.2003/ 22.2.2003 of the Senior Regio nal Manager, F.C.I, Regional Office, Guwahati directing recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the salary of the petitioner. I have heard Ms B Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr MK Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation. The pleaded case of the petitioner in short is that he joined the respon dent Corporation as Assistant Grade-III (D) on 14.6.77 and was posted as in-Char ge of Shed No.3/4, FSD, City Depot, Beltola from 3.11.95. In between, for a shor t term he was shifted as the weigh bridge in-Charge with effect from 30.5.2000 t o 30.8.2000, whereafter, he was re-posted at Shed No. 3/4, FSD, City Depot. He w as served with a Memorandum bearing No. V&S-26(4)/2001/4489 dated 6.9.2001 intim ating thereby that action was proposed to be taken against him under Regulation 60 of the F.C.I (Staff) Regulations, 1971 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ’the Regulations’) on the charge of having caused loss of URS Rice valued at Rs . 25,93,653.40 due to his negligence of duties. By the aforesaid Memorandum he w as required to submit his representation which he did on 20.9.2001 submitting hi s explanation. He denied the charge. It was thereafter that by the impugned orde r the aforementioned authority of the respondent Corporation being not satisfied with the representation submitted, imposed the penalty of recovery of Rs. 1,50, 000/- from his salary in 30 equal installments. The respondent Corporation in its affidavit has sought to endorse the validity o f the action taken on the ground that the loss had occurred due to negligence an d lack of devotion to duty of the petitioner. According to the respondent Corpor ation, he being the in-Charge of Shed No.3/4 of the concerned Depot at the relev ant point of time the loss was directly traceable to his remiss in duty. Ms. Dutta has urged that the impugned action is invalid as neither any r egular enquiry was held into the charge nor the order of recovery mentions about any reason in support thereof. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Food Corporation of India, Hyderabad & Ors. -vs- A. Prahalada Rao & Anr., (2001) 1 SCC 165 and of this Court in Bipin Rajbonghsi -vs- Union of Ind ia & Ors., 2007 (3) GLT 910. Mr Choudhury, in reply, has argued that as Regulation 60 under which the action was taken leaves the concerned authority at his/ her discretion to conduct an en quiry into the charge, the impugned decision is unassailable in law and as the m aterials on record clearly demonstrated culpability of the petitioner leading to enormous loss to the Corporation. The action having been taken in public intere st, ought not to be interfered with, he urged. This Court in Bipin Rajbonghsi (supra) on a scrutiny of Regulation 60 in particular, while acknowledging the discretion of the concerned authority of th e Corporation in the matter of conducting a regular departmental enquiry in case of minor penalty, had emphasized upon the indispensability of reasons in suppor t of any decision taken de hors the same (departmental enquiry). In the facts of that case the respondent Corporation having failed to indicate persuasive reaso ns either in its affidavit or in the connected official records to ratify the di sciplinary action taken, this Court invalidated the order for recovery from the salary of the petitioner therein. In the contextual facts as available in the instant case the situation i s no better. Admittedly, though the action was taken under Regulation 60 of the Regulations, no regular departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner, mo re importantly, as the charge levelled against him had been denied by him in cat egorical terms. The impugned order also does not disclose any reason for the dis ciplinary authority being not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the pe titioner vis-à-vis the charge. The affidavit filed also is conspicuously silent in this regard. The relevant records also do not disclose any persuasive and/or convincing reason in support of the impugned order. In the above view of the matter, having regard to the ratio of the decis ion of this Court rendered in Bipin Rajbonghsi (supra), there is no alternative but to interfere with the impugned order. Ordered accordingly. However, having regard to the ground for such interference, namely, want of reasons in the impugned order as well as in the affidavit and the relevant records, this Court, having regard to the nature of the allegation levelled agai nst the petitioner, wishes to part with the proceeding by leaving the respondent Corporation at liberty to take fresh steps as contemplated under Regulation 60 against him on this charge, if so advised. This is more so, as it is submitted a t the Bar that he is still in service. The petition is allowed to the extent as indicated hereinabove. No costs.