ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) We have learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent Corporation. 2. The present appeal arises from the order dated 28.1.2013 filed by the wife of the deceased employee seeking retrial dues which has been dismissed opining that there was a serious disputed question of fact involved leaving it open to move Court of competent jurisdiction for claiming death-cum-retiral dues where all issues can be sorted out by the evidence. 3. The husband of the appellant was posted as Assistant Godown Manager at Marhaura and Parsa. He died in harness on 6.2.2008. 4. On perusal of the order dated 27.7.2012 passed by the authorities, the claim against the deceased can be divided into three parts: (A) Recovery for a sum of Rs. 1,46,313.47 in pursuance of finding of guilt arrived at in a departmental proceeding and recovery of the same with 6% interest. (B) Shortage and damage to food grains discovered at Marhaura and Parsa Godowns after the death of the deceased. (C) Outstanding against advance given to the extent of Rs. 10,77,580/- 5. In so far as item ‘A’ is concerned, we see no reason to interfere with the order for recovery to the extent of Rs.1,46,313.47. Nothing has been placed before us that recovery with interest formed part of the charge in the departmental proceeding. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon 2004(1) P.L.J.R. 162 (Smt. Indu Devi Vs. The State of Bihar & others) that no interest can be charged on the amount recovered in the departmental proceeding. We are in concurrence with the submission on behalf of the appellant and hold that no interest can be recovered on the sum of Rs. 1,46,313.47. If any interest has been recovered against the same it is required to be refunded or adjusted. 7. In so far as item ‘B’ is concerned, we are of the confirmed view that the nature of shortage and damage to the food grains found on the next day after the death of the deceased cannot be expected to be answered by his legal heirs. The respondents are virtually seeking answers from a dead person. The appellant, wife of the deceased is hardly expected to be aware of the official procedure and functioning. The respondents are virtually seeking answers from a dead person. The appellant, wife of the deceased is hardly expected to be aware of the official procedure and functioning. The shortage and damage of the nature alleged could not have occurred over night as the Godown was inspected by the Corporation next day after his death. It is for the Corporation to explain why adequate precautions and steps were not taken in the life time of the deceased if food grains were not being kept properly or were being damaged. We, therefore, do not approve the impugned order to the extent that seeks to make recovery under item ‘B’. We are informed that group insurance and employee provident fund has been paid. Provisional pension had been started. It has been stopped on 5.1.2011. 8. The deceased during his life time was given an advance of Rs.20,46,015/-. Against the same he had submitted vouchers for a sum of Rs.4,47,016/- and Rs.5,21,419/-. A sum of Rs.10,77,580/- remains unadjusted. Since it is public money, partial voucher has been submitted, we are not inclined to accept the submission on behalf of the appellant that it is for the respondent to explain why proper steps for recovery or adjustment was not taken in due time. We hold that respondents are entitled to appropriate recovery and/or adjusted Rs.10,77,580/- as outstanding advance received by the deceased in his life time. 9. The appellant is held entitled to family pension for which the respondents are granted liberty to make appropriate adjustment under heading ‘A’ and ‘B’ only as discussed above. 10. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.