IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.854 of 2011 Vinod Kant Jha, s/o Late Haldhar Jha, resident of village-Haripur Gauri Das Tole, P.O.-Haripur Dih Tole, P.S.-Kaluwahi (Khajauli) District- Madhubani…………………………………………Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner of Department of Irrigation, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Engineer-in-chief, Department of Irrigation, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation No. II. Bishwaswaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 6. The Executive Engineer, rural Engineering Organisation, Works Division, Darbhanga, District-Darbhanga. 7. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga. 8. B.D.O., Jaley Block District Darbhanga. 9. State of Jharkhand through the Administrator Swarn Rekha Project, Department of Irrigation, Adityapur Swarn Rekha Bhawan, Adityapur, District-Jamshedpur. 10. Chief Engineer Rural Engineering Organisation Swarn Rekha Bhawan Adityapur, District Jamshedpur. 11. Superintending Engineer Rural Engineering Organisation, khar kai Dam Circle, Adityapur, District-Jamshedpur. 12. Executive Engineer, Minor Distribution Division-III Dimna Mango, Jamshedpur. …………………………………………...Respondents For the appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary Mr. Abinash Kr. Sinha For the State of Bihar : Mr. Maheshwar Dhar Dwivedi SC- 23 Mr. Sudhir Kumar Singh AC to SC 23 For the State of Jharkhand : Mr. N.N.Ojha. ----------- 3. 14.9.2011 Heard the parties in respect of I.A. No. 3791/2011 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. For the reasons mentioned therein, the delay of 164 days is condoned. I.A. stands allowed. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State of Bihar and learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand. 2 The facts of this case are slightly peculiar. As an Assistant Engineer posted in Swarn Rekha Project which is now under Jharkhand. The appellant was transferred from that project at Jamshedpur (Division-3) to Rajnagar (Division-12). According to the appellant, in spite of his repeated request such as made in Annexue-4 to the writ petition dated 3.3.1992 and Annexure-5 series, he was relieved without taking proper charge from him of the Stores which included a stock of tiles. Ultimately the appellant was able to hand over charge on 17.1.2001 and on account of broken and unusable conditions of the tiles, a demand of Rs. 1,51,000/- (One lakh and fifty one thousand) was made from the appellant. The appellant explained all the circumstances, and thereafter the authorities vide decision communicated through letter dated 19.12.2001 Annexure-8 to the writ petition passed an order for recovery of Rs. 85,800/- (Eighty five thousand and eight hundred) only which was to be made from the appellant. He filed representations and ultimately writ petition against the aforesaid decision. That writ petition bearing No. 12247 of 2004 has been dismissed by the order under appeal dated 26th October, 2010. We find that on account of neglect or deliberate act the State was put to loss and for that it was entitled to recover the amount in question from the guilty person. According to the submission advanced before us, the concerned Executive Engineer who ignored the request of the 3 appellant for taking charge in March, 1992 should be held responsible for the loss caused to the State. Had the said Executive Engineer been a party by name, we could have issued notice to him to have his version but unfortunately the then Executive Engineer is neither a party in the writ petition nor in the appeal. Even if we, prima facie, accept the contention of the appellant that the then Executive Engineer or his successor Executive Engineer of Division No. 3 at Dimna Mango, Jamshedpur was responsible for damage or loss to the State and even if it be further presumed that the appellant is correct in alleging that he was always ready to hand over charge which was not accepted by the authorities at Division-3, we find difficulty in deciding the issue finally. In view of the facts noted above, while dismissing this appeal, we grant liberty to the appellant that if he is so advised, he may sue the concerned officials who prevented him from handing over the charge and claim the loss which has been recovered from him or further damages, in accordance with law. Mkc/ (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)