JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner's grievance is against an order for recovery of Rs. 4 Lacs, which was the amount of compensation paid to the widow of the victim namely, Ranjan Kumar Sinha, from him. 2. Vide order dated 30.01.2008, operation of the impugned order dated 29.05.2007 was stayed. 3. Heard. 4. The petitioner who was posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Chutia police station, Ranchi was an accused for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC. The allegation against the petitioner was that he along with one Mr. Aradhna Singh were responsible for the incident in which one Ranjan Kumar Sinha died. His widow approached this Court in CWJC No.1427 of 1997 (R), in which proceeding the petitioner as well as the said Aradhna 2 Singh were party-respondents. This Court directed the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police, Government of Jharkhand to ensure payment of Rs. 4 Lacs as compensation to the widow of the deceased. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that in compliance of order passed by this Court in CWJC No.1427 of 1997 (R) compensation was paid to Smt. Snehlata, the widow and the said amount has to be recovered from the petitioner. It is further contended that the said amount shall be recovered from the petitioner in view of the prima-facie satisfaction recorded by the National Human Rights Commission, a report of which was produced before this Court in the previous writ proceeding. 6. Admittedly, no departmental proceeding for recovery of the amount paid as compensation to the widow of the deceased Ranjan Kumar Sinha was initiated by the department. For committing an offence, the petitioner was charge-sheeted and faced trial in T.R. No.194/2008. It is stated that the petitioner has been convicted in the said case, however, an appeal preferred by him is pending in the court. Be that as it may, taking note of the report of the National Human Rights Commission, which held that the State is vicariously liable to compensate the dependents of the deceased, this Court passed an order for payment of compensation of Rs. 4 Lacs. There was no decision by the Court on culpability or liability of the petitioner to pay compensation. Order dated 28.03.2007 issued by the Home Department would also disclose that the said amount was to be borne under the Budget Head 2235'. 4 Lacs. There was no decision by the Court on culpability or liability of the petitioner to pay compensation. Order dated 28.03.2007 issued by the Home Department would also disclose that the said amount was to be borne under the Budget Head 2235'. However, by the said order a direction was issued for recovery of Rs. 4 Lacs from the police officer responsible for the incident. In the light of the aforesaid direction unless it is found that the petitioner was solely responsible for the incident, order for recovery of Rs. 4 Lacs from him cannot be made. The order of conviction in the criminal case is under challenge. 7. In the light of the aforesaid facts, the impugned order dated 29.05.2007 where under, the petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs. 4 Lacs is hereby quashed. It is stated that the petitioner has since retired from service. However, before his superannuation from service he approached this Court on 03.07.2007 and while so, the State has jurisdiction to cause an enquiry or to initiate appropriate proceeding against the petitioner for recovery of the amount of compensation, that is, Rs. 4 Lacs. 8. The writ petition stands allowed, however, with liberty to the respondents to initiate appropriate proceeding in the matter.