Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner, Lai Babu Roy and Keshaw Prasad Singh were the Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer at the relevant time in the Water Resources Department of the State Government. They were served with show cause notice dated 17.7.1984 calling upon them to show cause as to why they be not asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,306/- the amount of loss suffered by the department on account of short supply of boulders to the tune of 22952 cubic feet after enquiry made by the Superintending Engineer at Spur Nos. 3 to 5, 9 and 10 of Barhaiya Protection Scheme. In response to the said show cause notice both the petitioners filed their show cause reply which are dated 28.7.1984, Annexure-8 in C.W.J.C. No. 3333 of 2001 and 26.6.1985, Annexure11 in C.W.J.C. No. 3821 of 2003. The authorities of the department having considered the aforesaid show cause reply, passed impugned order dated 19.9.1997 in the case of petitioner Keshaw Pd. Singh and order dated 16.12.1992 in the case of petitioner Lai Babu Roy, whereunder they were awarded punishment of censure, stoppage of promotion for a period of five years as also recovery of Rs. 48,000/and Rs. 36,000/-. 3. The aforesaid order dated 19.9.1997 has been assailed by filing C.W.J.C. No. 3333 of 2001 and order dated 16.12.1992 was assailed by filing C.W.J.C. No. 6508 of 1998. C.W.J.C. No. 6508 of 1998 was heard and disposed of under orders dated 12.10.1999, Annexure-12 in C.W.J.C. No. 3333 of 2001 whereunder the impugned order dated 16.12.1992 was set aside. The authorities having received the order dated 12.10.1999, Annexure-12 in CWJC No. 3333 of 2001 issued fresh show cause notice dated 26.2.2001 to Lal Babu Roy enclosing the same chargesheet, which was earlier served on him, who having received the same submitted his reply dated 25.9.2001, whereunder he submitted before the authorities that the earlier impugned order having already been set aside for violation of natural justice as also on the ground that there was no evidence to support the charge, the authorities are not well advised to proceed with the enquiry and he be exonerated. The authorities having considered the reply, passed the impugned order dated 1.2.2003, Annexure-15 of CWJC No. 3821 of 2003, whereunder they again reiterated the same punishment, which was imposed earlier. The authorities having considered the reply, passed the impugned order dated 1.2.2003, Annexure-15 of CWJC No. 3821 of 2003, whereunder they again reiterated the same punishment, which was imposed earlier. Petitioner has once again assailed the said order dated 1.2.2003, Annexure15 on the ground that the same has been passed ignoring the directions of this court contained in order dated 12.10.1999 and further reiterated the same submission stating that there is absolutely no evidence to establish that the boulders were lost on account of omission/commission on the part of the petitioners as has been held under earlier order of this Court and it was submitted that the fresh impugned order dated 1.2.2003, Annexure-15 be quashed on the self same grounds discussed in the earlier orders of this Court dated 12.10.1999. 4. During the pendency of CWJC No. 3821 of 2003, petitioner Lal Babu Roy has left for his heavenly abode, leaving behind heirs as indicated in paragraph no. 2 of I.A. No. 3883 of 2007. Let the name of petitioner, Lal Babu Roy be expunged from the records of this case and in his place, heirs mentioned in paragraph 2 of I.A. No. 3883 of 2007 be substituted. 5. By filing counter affidavit, counsel for the State, with reference to the averments made therein, has opposed the prayer and submitted that as in the subsequent reply dated 25.9.2001, Annexure-14, petitioner did not take any defence the same was rightly not considered as petitioner himself is responsible for the same since he did not take any defence in support of his case that the loss of boulders was not on account of his omission. In the circumstances, the authorities of the department were not obliged to consider his defence as he had not taken the same in his reply and this Court should affirm the findings recorded in the impugned order dated 1.2.2003. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the pleadings filed by them as also the impugned order dated 1.2.2003 in the case of petitioner Lal Babu Roy and 19.9.1997 in the case of petitioner Keshaw Prasad Singh, I am of the view that the two orders whereunder punishment of censure, stoppage of promotion for a period of five years as also recovery of the sum of Rs. 36,000/-, 48,000/- has been imposed are fit to be set aside as from perusal of those two orders, it does not appear that the grounds taken in support of their show cause reply dated 28.7.1984, Annexure-8 in the case of Keshaw Prasad Singh and 26.6.1985, Annexure-11 in the case of Lal Babu Roy that they are not responsible for any omission/commission leading to the loss of boulders as that happened only on account of floods, which visited the boulder stacks, does not appear to have been considered. It is also not understandable as to how a sum of Rs. 36,000/- and 48,000/- is sought to be recovered from the petitioners when from memo of charge itself it appears that the loss suffered by the department on account of loss of boulders is to the tune of Rs. 50,306/- but the total amount sought to be recovered from these two petitioners is to the tune of Rs. 84,000/-. 7. In the circumstances, I set aside both the impugned orders dated 19.9.1997, Annexure-9 in CWJC No. 3333 of 2001 and order dated 1.2.2003, Annexure-15 in CWJC No. 3821 of 2003 and remit back the matter to the authorities in the department to pass appropriate order in accordance with law with liberty to them to even close the proceedings as one of the Protagonists (Lal Babu Roy) has already left for his heavenly abode and the other (Keshaw Prasad Singh) is due to retire within a span of two years. Matter be considered by the authorities of the department in the light of this order within three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.