JUDGMENT 1. 1. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the 9 petitioners against the order dated 7-2-1992 in which the respondents have directed to recover the shortage of milk transported by the petitioners in the city of Jaipur. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioners are performing the duties of drivers on milk tankers used for bulk vending of the milk in the city of Jaipur. The milk is collected from various milk chilling centers and dairy plants. It is also alleged that the petitioners are also performing the additional duties of vehicle clerk and the vehicle clerk is always required to accompany the driver of the truck when the supply is being made and in spite of the request of the petitioners the respondents never sent any vehicle clerk with the petitioners and this duty has been performed by the petitioners alone without getting any additional salary or allowances in respect of the duties of the vehicle clerk performed by the petitioners. It is submitted that some time the milk is found excess and some time in short quantity and this is because of the defect in the measuring machines at Jaipur supply depot situated at Jaipur Dairy Complex or in measuring machines at local milk booths. It is also submitted that in respect of the outside procurement of milk no problem is created by the respondents irrespective of any quantity of shortage and the criteria which has been adopted in respect of supply of milk in Jaipur is absolutely unreasonable. It has further been submitted that the duties of the driver is to drive the vehicle and not to supply the milk and no rules have been framed for conferring the authority on respondents to calculate or consider the driver responsible for any shortage or deficiency in respect of the milk which has been supplied in the city. It is also submitted that since the truck drivers of outside have not been made responsible in the same manner the petitioners who were supplying the milk in the city may also not be held responsible. There is no misconduct of statutory requirement and, therefore, no amount can be collected from the petitioners. 2. It is also submitted that since the truck drivers of outside have not been made responsible in the same manner the petitioners who were supplying the milk in the city may also not be held responsible. There is no misconduct of statutory requirement and, therefore, no amount can be collected from the petitioners. 2. It is alleged that the petitioners are forced to carry on the duty and they are working under the pressure and in spite of various representations with regard to the change of duty and defect in the measuring machines the respondents did not care to look into the matter. 3. It is also submitted that when the respondents have send their officers to check the deficiency it was found that the shortage was from 40 to 45 litre per day and inspite of such a factual report fixing of permissible deficiency of 35 litres is contrary to their own experience. It is also submitted that earlier even the deficiency upto 70 litres was allowed but it was changed from time to time and now the quantity fixed is 25 litres and this has been made applicable retrospectively and this action is malafide and arbitrary. 4. So far as the allegation of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to discrimination between the job which has been carried on by the drivers in procuring the milk from outside Jaipur and bringing it to Jaipur vis-a-vis the drivers who are supplying the milk within the city both of them constitute separate class and the grievance of discrimination cannot be raised because the extent of deficiency or shortage in respect of supply of milk within Jaipur city cannot be compared with that of outside procurement and, therefore, no grievance of arbitrariness or discrimination in this regard can be raised. Besides this the petitioners have not submitted any document with regard to the procedure which has been followed in respect of the deficiency of milk which is procured from outside Jaipur city. 5. The petitioners have also not submitted any document to prove that when the officers visited with the tanker the shortage in all the tanks was from 40 to 45 litres and, therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not an admitted position or proved by any evidence on record and, therefore, the same has no substance. 6. 6. The order dated 1-9-1980 is not a final order in itself as the comments of Shri Bhargava were required to be further submitted upto 20-9-1980 and a bare perusal of the order dated 7-2-1992 will show that is was in compliance of the office order dated 30-10-1991 in respect of supplies from June, 1988 to November, 1991. In this order the deficiency was allowed at 0.8% per litre or 25 litres per day whichever is higher. Since the copy of the order dated 30- 10-1991 has not been produced but from the perusal of the order dated 7-2-1992 it is evident that the deficiency has been considered in respect of the period from June, 1988 to November, 1991 it cannot be considered that the order has been given retrospective effect. A bare perusal of this order will show that the shortage in one case is as small as Rs. 142/- then in another case it is as high as Rs. 82,544/-. It was admitted by the petitioners that they alone were carrying the milk and it was for them to prove before the respondents as to how the deficiency has occurred. Simply, on the basis of defect in measuring instrument such a deficiency cannot be alleged to have arisen when the respondent themselves have allowed a particular percentage irrespective of the fact that whether there is any shortage or not. It is the usual trade practice also that whenever the truck driver is entrusted with a commodity which is liquid in nature they are allowed a fixed quantity for shortage and if there is more shortage then they have to bear it. Even the order dated 7-2-1992 shows that in some case the deficiency is very abnormal while in other case it is negligible and if a criteria is fixed by the respondents for allowing a particular percentage of shortage no illegality has been committed by them. The order was passed on 7-2-1992 and the writ petition has been filed on 4-11-1992. The petitioners were well aware of the proceedings which were initiated for recovery in respect of shortage from June, 1988 to November. 1991 and to approach this Court after about 9 months only shows the weakness of their case. The order was passed on 7-2-1992 and the writ petition has been filed on 4-11-1992. The petitioners were well aware of the proceedings which were initiated for recovery in respect of shortage from June, 1988 to November. 1991 and to approach this Court after about 9 months only shows the weakness of their case. It was not obligatory on the part of the respondents to direct any other person to accompany with the vehicle and simply on that ground it cannot be said that the petitioners are not responsible for the recovery. The petitioners have been made responsible in accordance with general law and it is not necessary that there should have been specific rules for calculating or considering the liability of the drivers for deficiency. This Court cannot determine the factual disputes which have been raised in the present writ petition. The respondents have their own experience on the basis of which the percentage 0.8% have been fixed by them. The dispute which has been raised by the petitioners is more or less of a nature which is factual and could not be considered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. One thing I would also like to observe that when within a period of about 3 years the deficiency of about Rs. 80,000 was noted the respondents should have been vigilant and should have taken the steps for checking such a high shortage. It is a loss of public money and could have been possible only with the connivance of officer who in spite of getting the regular information of such shortage in a particular case has not been vigilant to physically check by surprise inspection or by instituting any criminal case. 7. A copy of this order may be sent to the Managing Director Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Limited for looking into the matter and taking appropriate action against the person responsible for such a negligence. 8. The writ petition has no force and is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******