IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2555 of 2009 PHULESHWAR MAHTO Versus BIHAR STATE BEVERAGE CORPN.LTD ----------- 2. 26.2.2009 Heard Mr. Sharwan Kumar, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents. In the opinion of this Court the grievance highlighted by the petitioner as against the impugned order dated 16.1.2009 seeking to make recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,78,361/- from the petitioner on the ground of loss caused to the Bihar State Beverage Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) seems to be genuine and in fact justified. It would appear from the show cause notice dated 18.6.2008 that the petitioner alongwith four others were directed to file their show cause reply as to why a total sum of Rs. 5,97,846.23 paise on the head of unexplained depot loss should not be recovered from the petitioner and four others. The petitioner thereafter had filed an exhaustive show cause reply on 22.6.2008 which was not disposed of and again another 2 show cause notice dated 19.8.2008 was slammed against him and five others. This time for a different period and still for a larger amount being Rs. 20,72,549.66 paise. The petitioner again had filed another show cause reply, as contained in Annexure 9 dated 26.8.2008. The authority ultimately had passed the impugned order as with regard to making recovery from the petitioner of the aforementioned sum of Rs. 1,78,361.00 under the impugned order dated 16.1.2009. The procedure of seeking recovery of a loss sustained to the Corporation cannot be faulted in law because if the Corporation has been put to loss the same can definitely be recovered from the erring employee(s) but then when a show cause notice for this purpose is issued and an exhaustive show cause reply is filed, the same needs to be considered and decided in the light of the defence taken therein. The requirement of passing the reasoned order, therefore, is yet another important facet of the principle of natural justice as was held by the Apex Court in the case of S.N.Mukherjee vs Union of India, 3 reported in AIR 1990 S.C. 1984. Judging the correctness of the impugned order on the touch stone of the principles of natural justice this Court would find that one line observation that the show cause reply of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory can hardly be an effective consideration. The authority had to pass a reasoned order at least indicating application of mind as to what was the nature of misconduct committed by the petitioner and how the defence taken by the petitioner in this regard were found to be worth rejection. That having been not done, this Court would find the impugned order to be wholly unsustainable in law and accordingly, would set aside the impugned order in respect of the petitioner and remit the matter back to the Managing Director of the Corporation to pass a fresh order which as indicated above must be a speaking order. It is made clear that as the order has been quashed, the petitioner will not be subjected to any further recovery or any coercive measure for such recovery under the impugned order for the time being, till any 4 such fresh order is passed against the petitioner. With the aforesaid observation and directions this application, accordingly, stands finally disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/