WP(C) 4888/2003 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY The petitioner who is serving in the respondent Food Corporation of India (FCI) as an AG-I(D) challenges the order dated 2.9.2002 (Annexure-3A) whereby, the Sen ior Regional Manager of the FCI as the Disciplinary Authority, has ordered for r ecovery of Rs.3,95,130.11 (Rupees three lakhs, ninety five thousand, one hundred thirty and eleven paisa) only from the salary of the petitioner in 40 equal ins talments. The impugned order was preceded by a Memorandum of Charge dated 6.12.2 001 wherein it was alleged that the petitioner while serving as AG-I(D) in Shed No.3/4, FSD, City Depot, Guwahati had caused storage loss of rice stored in the said shed. 2. In his reply dated 9.1.2002, the petitioner contended that the storage l oss cannot be attributed to the fault of the petitioner as there are various fac tors which may have caused such loss during storage and accordingly requested th e Disciplinary Authority for exonerating him from the charges levelled against h im. 3. However purportedly being dissatisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, the impugned recovery order has been passed. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that no reasons are assigned by the Disciplinary Authority for rejecting the explana tion furnished by the petitioner. Nor any reasons are indicated for dispensing w ith a formal departmental inquiry into the charges. It is accordingly submitted that the issues raised in the instant petition is squarely covered by a decision rendered in Bipin Rajbongshi vs. Union of India reported in 2007 (3) GLT 910. 5. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondents submits that although the Court in the case of Bipin Rajbongshi (Supra) had in terfered with the recovery order passed against a similarly situated store-in-ch arge of the FCI, the Court had also granted the liberty to the respondents to ho ld a de novo enquiry, if so advised. 6. Having regard to the submissions made and the law laid down by this Cour t in Bipin Rajbongshi (Supra), I am of the view that the issues raised in the p resent case are squarely covered by the said decision of this Court. Accordingly the impugned order dated 2.9.2002 ordering recovery of the alleged loss from th e petitioner’s salary is interfered with and quashed. However the respondents ar e granted the liberty to proceed against the petitioner if so advised, by holdin g an appropriate departmental enquiry into the charges levelled against the peti tioner. 7. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent shown above.