JUDGMENT P. K. TRIPATHY, J. : Petitioner, while as Junior Manager of the Orissa Small Industries Corporation Ltd. (in short ‘Corporation’) at its Rourkela unit, was served with notices to account for the shortage in stock of different articles, such as, Billets, G.C. Sheet, Rod-in-Coil, etc. The series of correspon¬dences in that respect are Annexure-1 to 5. The shortages were found at different stations of the Corporation and four of its Junior Managers at different stations and one Senior Assistant and two Junior Assistants in another station being in-charge of the stock and store, were served with notices to make good the loss by paying the price of such missing articles. According to the Corporation, during the stock verification made on different dates, after allowing the admissible deduction in weigh variation on weighment at two places, it was seen that there was still shortage of certain quantity of stock of raw materials of the above types. After consideration of the explanation of the con¬cerned Junior Managers and other employees accountable for stock of raw materials at respective stations, the Board of Directors in their meeting held on 23.09.1993, 21.05.1994, 25.03.1996 and 30.06.1997 determined the amount which is to be paid by each of the Junior Managers, one Senior Assistant and two Junior Assis¬tants. In that respect the decision of the Board was communicated under Annexure-3. According to that, petitioner is to account for the loss of raw materials worth Rs.46,489/- (rupees forty six thousand four hundred eighty nine) for the year 1995-96. Peti¬tioner has challenged that order. Petitioner has stated that after receipt of order of the Board of Directors, he made the representation Annexure-4, but that was not considered in his favour. That averment has been made in paragraph-14 of the writ petition. Petitioner has contended that he is not responsible for the shortages found during stock verification, but the superior officers of the petitioner working at the depot should have been saddled with the liability and the shortage may be due to varia¬tion in weight recorded at the weighment bridges at the spot of lifting of raw materials at different places and, therefore, the notice Annexure-3 be quashed and a writ of mandamus be issued to the opposite party to not to recover the amount under Annex¬ure-3, so far as the petitioner is concerned. 2. 2. In the counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite party, while denying to the above noted assertions in paragraph-14 of the writ petition, inter alia it has been stated that petitioner was in charge of the store and stock of R.M.D., Rourkela w.e.f. 11.06.1992 and therefore he is accountable for the shortage in stock and that during the course of physical verifications for different periods it was found that after deducting the admissible variable of 0.25% in two weights still shortage in stock of different raw materials were noticed and petitioner is liable to account for the same. 3. Petitioner has filed a rejoinder reiterating his contention in the writ petition regarding accountability of other superior officers working at the depot and further stating the reason for such shortages noted during verification of the stocks. 4. On careful perusal of the averments in the writ peti¬tion, counter affidavit and the Annexures, it is seen that the stock verification and shortage in the stock is not denied at any a stage till the decision was taken by the Board of Directors in their different sittings. Petitioner has not been successful to deny his liability as the in-charge of the stock and store. There¬fore, whether or not there were any other senior officers working at the station, he cannot wriggle out from the responsibility of accounting for the stock or to face the consequences for the shortage unless he establishes that the shortage in stock is due to some reason that was beyond his control. No such undisputable case has been made out by the petitioner. Under such circumstance we do not find good reason to issue a writ of mandamus, as prayed for by the petitioner. Claim of the petitioner about putting forth representation (Annexure-4) has been denied in the counter affidavit. We do not make any further order in that respect. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. No cost. A. K. PARICHHA, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.