JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The petitioner is a Warehouse Superintendent in State Warehouse, Haridwar. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 31.12.2015 passed by the Managing Director (Annexure No.7 to the writ petition), whereby an amount of Rs.3,32,601.98/- is being recovered from the petitioner for the reason that during the period from 1999-2000 to 2005-2006 when the petitioner was posted as Ware House Superintendent out of total foodgrain deposited by the Food Corporation of India and the Food & Civil Supply Department, 3,99,77,545 quintal foodgrain was found to be less, which was evaluated to the tune of Rs.3,32, 601.98/- By now, an amount of Rs.80,000/- has already been taken from the salary of the petitioner by way of deducting an amount of Rs.10,000/- every month. 2. The case of the respondent Warehousing Corporation, is that it is the Warehousing Corporation, which has discovered the decrease in the quantity of wheat during this period and in anticipation that such a demand would be made by the Food Corporation of India and the Food & Civil Supply Department they are making this recovery. 3. The case of the petitioner, on the other hand, is that the delivery of wheat stored by the Food Corporation of India has already been given to the Food Corporation of India about 16 years back. They have no case against the present petitioner or against the Warehousing Corporation. This recovery is purely in anticipation without holding any inquiry or fixing any individual liability in the matter. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submits that it cannot be disputed that the quantity was less and in case the Food Corporation of India makes a claim at a further stage, they will not be able to recover the amount from the petitioner as by that time the petitioner would reach the age of superannuation and would retire from service. Therefore, for abundant precautions, this recovery is being made from the petitioner. 5. This Court is of the view that though the quantity of food grain deposited in the Warehouse could not have been less than what was actually deposited and to that extent the Warehouse Corporation may be held responsible for which individual liability has to be fixed and money has to be recovered. 5. This Court is of the view that though the quantity of food grain deposited in the Warehouse could not have been less than what was actually deposited and to that extent the Warehouse Corporation may be held responsible for which individual liability has to be fixed and money has to be recovered. But as of now no such demand has been raised by the Food Corporation of India and the Food & Civil Supply Department and this recovery is being made, as admitted by the respondents, purely for abundant precautions. 6. The writ petition, therefore, stands disposed with the direction to the respondents that no further recovery shall be made. The respondents shall inform about the decrease of food grains to Food Corporation of India and Civil Supply Department and if thereafter they come to the conclusion that in view of the inquiry the amount is liable to be paid by the petitioner, the same shall be recovered. As of now, since, this procedure has not been adopted nor any complaint has been made by the Food Corporation of India, the amount cannot be recovered from the petitioner. The amount which has already been recovered from the petitioner shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) and at the time of retirement of the petitioner, if no such inquiry is done or liability is fixed, the amount along with interest accrued shall be returned to the petitioner. In case, it is found that the petitioner is liable to pay that amount, the same shall be recovered by the Warehousing Corporation from the petitioner and be given to the Food Corporation of India or Department of Civil Supply, as the case might be. Till such proceeding are completed, the order dated 31.12.2015 shall remain in abeyance.