ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amrendra Narayan Rai, learned counsel for all the Respondents/Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. 2. The petitioner, who was posted as Incharge District Manager at Nawadah in Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. ( hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”), has approached this Court, while invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to quash an order , contained in Memo No.6995 dated 30.08.2005 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), whereby a decision was taken to recover 15 % of defalcated amount i.e. Rs.30,36,138.23, while the petitioner was posted from 06.03.2002 to 24.06.2003. It was noticed that the said defalcation was committed by one Sri Hari Ram Paswan, the then Assistant Godown Manager. It was directed to recover Rs.4, 55,420.75 along with interest @ 18 % i.e. Rs.1, 47,632.25 from the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of an order, contained in Memo No.1658 dated 23.02.2006 issued under the signature of Respondent no.3/ the Chief of Administration (contained in Annexure-8 to the writ petition). By the said order, it was decided to recover 15 % along with interest and punishment of stoppage of one year increment with cumulative effect was passed and further he was warned to be vigilant in future. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was imposed major punishment, no regular departmental proceeding was initiated by the authority concerned. Firstly, by issuance of Annexure-1 to the writ petition i.e. letter No.3691 dated 19.05.2005, the petitioner was asked by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director to submit his explanation regarding lapses on the part of the petitioner in respect of defalcation committed by Sri Hari Ram Paswan, Assistant Manager. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted his reply vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition giving details of the fact. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner through his reply had categorically explained that from time to time he was giving intimation to the higher authorities regarding lapses on the part of Sri Hari Ram Paswan, Assistant Manager. Reply was submitted by the petitioner on 22.06.2005 and thereafter within two months from the date of submitting his explanation, Annexure-3 was issued for recovery of the amount as indicated above. Reply was submitted by the petitioner on 22.06.2005 and thereafter within two months from the date of submitting his explanation, Annexure-3 was issued for recovery of the amount as indicated above. Against the order passed in Annexure-3 i.e. order dated 30.08.2005, the petitioner again filed his application before the Chairman-cum- Managing Director to consider his case and, thereafter, finally Annexure-8 was issued and recovery order was passed , as indicated above. It has been emphatically argued that both the orders i.e. Annexures 3 & 8 to the writ petition are liable to be set aside on the ground that no regular departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of averment made in the counter affidavit as well as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, submits that the Respondents for defalcation of Rs.38,81,188.93 had initiated a regular departmental proceeding against Sri Hari Ram Paswan, Assistant Manager and finally in the departmental proceeding, order of dismissal from service in respect of Sri Hari Ram Paswan was passed and also for recovery of entire defalcated amount has also been passed. He submits that once the Corporation had already detected and decided that defalcation was committed by Sri Hari Ram Paswan , there was no occasion for the Corporation to pass any order for recovery of any so called defalcated amount and, as such, both the orders are liable to be set aside. 5. Sri Amrendra Narayan Rai, learned counsel for the Corporation, though, has opposed the prayer of the petitioner, was not in a position to justify as to whether for imposing major punishment in absence of regular departmental proceeding, order can be sustained or not . He tried to justify the case on the averment made in the counter affidavit. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Fact remains that punishment order has been passed without initiating a regular departmental proceeding and, as such, on this score itself; both the orders are liable to be set aside. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Fact remains that punishment order has been passed without initiating a regular departmental proceeding and, as such, on this score itself; both the orders are liable to be set aside. Besides, it is further evident that for the alleged defalcation, a regular departmental proceeding was initiated against Sri Hari Ram Paswan, Assistant Manager and finally he has been dismissed from service and order was passed for recovery of entire defalcated amount and, as such, there was no occasion for passing order for recovery of 15 % of the said defalcated amount from the petitioner. 7. In view of facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that both the orders i.e. Annexures-3 and 8 to the writ petition have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, same are hereby set aside and the writ petition stands allowed with all consequential benefits. It is made clear that the amount deducted and recovered from the petitioner must be refunded within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. The writ petition stands allowed.