JUDGMENT 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for an order quashing the order dated 23.12.2006(Annexure-10) passed by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Supoul Bihar (Respondent No. 4) whereby he has called upon the Executive Engineer, Punasi Spell Division, Punasi Camp, Deoghar (Respondent No. 2) to recover the sum of Rs. 41,634/- from the salary of the petitioner. A further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 6.2.2007 (Annexure-11) issued by the office of the Executive Engineer, Punasi Spell Well Devision, Punasi Camp, Deoghar (Respondent No. 2), whereby the recovery of the sum of Rs. 41,634/- has been ordered to be made from the salary of the petitioner in 18 installments. 3. Facts of the case in brief is as follows: Prior to his transfer to Deoghar in the State of Jharkhand, the petitioner was employed in the Irrigation Division, Birpur, Supoul, Bihar. After his transfer to Deoghar, his salary and other records pertaining to his service book were not promptly transmitted to Deoghar in spite of repeated demands and ultimately, the petitioner had filed a writ application before this court. It was during the pendency of this writ application that the service book of the petitioner was duly transmitted to Deoghar. Consequently, the writ application was dismissed as infructuous. Thereafter, a letter (Annexure-6) was issued by the Executive Engineer (Respondent No. 2) to the petitioner calling upon him to hand over certain articles referred to in Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit of the respondent State of Bihar. It appears that the petitioner respond by contending that such articles were never entrusted to him by his predecessor from whom the petitioner had earlier taken charge of office and likewise, at the time of his handing over of charge, the petitioner had entrusted to his successor in office, all the articles which was in his custody and thereafter, he was released with grant of no objection certificate. Despite such reply, the petitioner was again served with a letter disputing the petitioner's contention and calling upon him to submit relevant documents and materials within 15 days from the date of receipt of the Shri Dineshwar Thakur ''Din'' vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... Despite such reply, the petitioner was again served with a letter disputing the petitioner's contention and calling upon him to submit relevant documents and materials within 15 days from the date of receipt of the Shri Dineshwar Thakur ''Din'' vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 4 December, 2009 letter with a warning that if the petitioner fails to respond, the value of the articles would be assessed and the same would be recovered from his salary. It appears that though, the petitioner had responded by offering explanation, but the same was not accepted. On the contrary, the respondent Executive Engineer (Respondent No. 4) issued the order (Annexure-10) for recovery of the amount of Rs. 41,634/- from the salary of the petitioner and accordingly, a direction was forwarded to the Executive Engineer (Respondent No. 2) for the recovery of the amount and in pursuance thereof, the impugned order (Annexure-11) was issued, for recovery of the amount. Though the amount was sought to be recovered, but the same has been stayed by an interim order of this court. 4. In the counter-affidavit of the respondents, the stand taken is that the petitioner was though transferred fromSupoul to Deoghar and had obtained no objection certificate, but later on, it was detected that certain articles, as mentioned in Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit, were not handed over by the petitioner. The petitioner, despite being repeatedly reminded, had not offered a reasonable explanation. Consequently, the order for recovery of the amount of Rs. 41,634/- was passed after assessing the value of the loss sustained by the Department. 5. Counsel for the respondent State of Jharkhand submits that the fact as it would appear, indicates that the petitioner upon his transfer from the earlier place of posting, did not hand over the charge of certain articles, thereby causing loss to the concerned Department and it is this amount of loss which is sought to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel adds that the petitioner appears to have some misconception that the order for recovery of the sum has been passed by holding him guilty of some charge and that the said order was passed by way of punishment against him, though such is not the case. 6. Learned counsel adds that the petitioner appears to have some misconception that the order for recovery of the sum has been passed by holding him guilty of some charge and that the said order was passed by way of punishment against him, though such is not the case. 6. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there is disputed question of fact as to whether the petitioner had ever received such articles and had thereafter failed to account for the same. It appears that the impugned order of recovery has been passed without a detailed or complete inquiry into the matter. It is one thing to say that the Department has suffered some loss and it is another thing to say that the petitioner is responsible for the same. Responsibility on the petitioner can be fixed only if it is established by way of inquiry that the petitioner was entrusted with the articles and had not accounted for the same and only after he has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 7. In the light of the above facts, I am convinced that the direction for recovery of the amount of Rs. 41,634/-from the petitioner's salary is illegal and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned orders as contained in Annexures-10 and 11, are hereby set aside.