Order Present petition was filed assailing the order dated 19.1.2004, whereby a direction was issued by the Divisional Manager for recovery of Rs. 57,878.50/- only from the salary of the petitioner @ Rs.1,000/- per month. 2. Brief facts of the present case is that while the petitioner was posted as Conductor in a Bus bearing Registration No. BRTP-4459 in way to Gumla-Varanasi as on 20.12.2003-21.12.2003, the bag containing printed tickets and other materials, was stolen when the petitioner went to temple, for which, a report was lodged with the police station on 21.12.2003 as well as senior officers were also informed by the petitioner on phone. Amount/cost of the tickets sold by the petitioner was duly deposited by him, since the amount was in his pocket. Divisional Manager has passed impugned order directing the recovery of the cost of the unused tickets issued to the petitioner, which were in the stolen bag. 3. On being asked, learned counsel for the parties have fairly stated that neither any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor he was heard nor any disciplinary proceeding was ever initiated against him before passing the impugned order. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that although, petitioner has made representation (Annexure-3) to the Administrator, Bihar Road Transport Corporation on 15.5.2004, but, neither petitioner was heard nor any decision was taken thereon. 4. Perusal of Annexure-4 (copy of the judgment passed by learned single Judge of Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4451 of 1996, Braj Kishore Mishra vs. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and Others dated 7th July, 2000) would show that in the identical facts and circumstances of the case, learned single Judge of the Patna High Court has quashed the order of recovery. Applying the same principle in the peculiar facts and circumstances, wherein neither show cause notice was issued nor was any disciplinary enquiry ever initiated or the petitioner was heard, therefore, the order impugned, cannot stand in the scrutiny of law. 5. In view of the peculiar fact that petitioner has expired during the pendency of this petition, De novo inquiry cannot be directed by this Court. 6. Present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 19.1.2004 is quashed. 5. In view of the peculiar fact that petitioner has expired during the pendency of this petition, De novo inquiry cannot be directed by this Court. 6. Present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 19.1.2004 is quashed. Further, the recovery already made from the salary/pensionary benefits of the petitioner, shall be refunded to the petitioners within sixty days from today positively, otherwise, the respondents shall also pay interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum from today.