Judgment 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 9.7.1999 (Annexure 12) passed by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Begusarai (Respondent No. 1); whereby the petitioners appointment as a Collecting Agent under the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act for the period 1.4.1999 to 31.3.2000, has been cancelled with effect from the date of the order and his security money as well as the commission payable to him has been forfeited. 2. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was issued a show cause notice dated 4.6.1999 (Annexure 10) calling upon to show cause as to why the aforesaid appointment be not cancelled forthwith. He denied the allegations. The substance of the allegations against the petitioner is that he has been insulting and terrorising the persons within the jurisdiction of the Market Committee in realisation of the market fee. He has been realising it but not depositing with the Market Committee, and also that he has been realising it on items which are not agricultural produce. Cause was shown on 10.6.1999 (Annexure 11). On a consideration of the materials on record including the cause shown by the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. There was no enquiry conducted into the allegations against the petitioner. He further submits that the allegations are of vague nature, lacks in requisite particulars, and are therefore, incapable of being effectively replied. He further submits that it is manifest from the impugned order that the same has been passed at the behest of the District Magistrate, who is no authority under the Act. He lastly submits that he is in any case entitled to refund of security money and the amount of commission that he is entitled for collecting the market fee. 4. Mr. K.P.Yadav, Advocate, appears for the Market Committee, and submits that an appropriate show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner conveying to him the allegations that had come to the notice of the Market Committee, and the petitioner had submitted an effective reply to the same. 4. Mr. K.P.Yadav, Advocate, appears for the Market Committee, and submits that an appropriate show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner conveying to him the allegations that had come to the notice of the Market Committee, and the petitioner had submitted an effective reply to the same. He further submits that had the petitioner any grievance with regard to the vagueness of the allegations, he ought to have represented before the Secretary, Market Committee himself, rather than making this grievance at such a belated stage. In any case, in his submission, the allegations are not vague. He next submits that the illegal and undesirable activities of the petitioner had given rise to serious problems of law and order in the area which had brought about the involvement of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police. 4.1. In the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent, the petitioner was collecting illegally from the truck owners and others who were passing by the national highway and were not carrying agricultural produce. Therefore, the involvement of the District Magistrate was under the extra-ordinary situation created by the petitioner. He lastly submits that forfeiture of the security money and the petitioners commission is justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that the writ petition has to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondent is right in his submission that the show- cause notice issued to the petitioner is not vague. The allegations speak of a very high-handed approach on the part of the petitioner. Secondly, the petitioner did not submit an effective reply to the same and had not made a grievance of vagueness of the allegations before the authorities. In that view of the matter, I have no hesitation in holding that principles of natural justice were fully observed in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a grievance that the District Magistrate is not a recognised authority in the scheme of the Act, notwithstanding which he has interfered in this matter. On first flush, the argument appears to be attractive but has to be rejected in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a grievance that the District Magistrate is not a recognised authority in the scheme of the Act, notwithstanding which he has interfered in this matter. On first flush, the argument appears to be attractive but has to be rejected in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. This Court is in no doubt that the petitioner had engaged himself in a high handed manner and in illegal activities, was realising market fee and not depositing the same with the market committee and he had been realising the exactions from truck owners and others who were using the highway which must have given rise to law and order problem. In that view of the matter, involvement of the District Magistrate was imperative. The contention is, therefore, rejected. 7. On the question of the second part of the order, regarding forfeiture of the security money as well as commission payable to the petitioner, it has to be upheld on account of the high-handed approach and illegal activities of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Market Committee has rightly invited my attention to paragraph 4 of the Agreement dated 31.3.1999 inter-parties (Annexure 5), paragraph 4 of which is relevant in the present context and is set out hereinbelow : It is, therefore, fully permissible for the Market Committee to forfeit the security money. In so far as the question of petitioners commission is concerned, learned counsel for the Market Committee has invited my attention to paragraph 3 of the show-cause notice which is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference. It is thus manifest that the petitioner had been realising market fee and not depositing it with the Market Committee. In that view of the matter, forfeiture of the commission earned by the petitioner on the market fee collected by him can be validly forfeited. It is a normal incidence of dismissal from service that the dismissed employee is deprived of the benefits of his past services. This principle is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition is dismissed.