ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Durga Charan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-B.S.R.T.C. 2. In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has sought for quashing the Office order no. 164/2007, issued by the Divisional Manager, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Dumka vide Memo No. 795 dated 21.06.2007 (Annexure-11), whereby order has been passed for deduction of Rs.1,000/- per month from the salary of the petitioner as the installment towards adjustment of the loss alleged to have been sustained by the Corporation to the tune of Rs.2,13,774/-. The petitioner has further prayed for direction commanding upon the respondent no. 2 to consider and dispose of the Appeal, preferred by the petitioner against the order, issued under the signature of the Operation Chief, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna, hereinafter to be referred in short as ‘BSRTC, Patna’ in accordance with law. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, as has been delineated in the writ application is that the petitioner is the employee of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, incorporated under the Road Transport Act. Inter-State buses were plying between the State of Jharkhand and the State of Bihar. While continuing, as Depot Superintendent, at Deoghar, the petitioner submitted an application before the Divisional Manager, BSRTC, Dumka for allotment of tax and in the said letter, the petitioner also requested that permit can be issued when the mentioned amount will be deposited. While applications for road permit was pending, the Commissioner, Transport, Jharkhand, Ranchi directed to all concerned, to issue inter-State road permit and not to create any disturbance for BSRTC buses. It has also been stated that the petitioner vide letter dated 05.10.2004 has informed the Divisional Manager, Dumka and on being informed that the private owner has made complaint before the D.T.O., Bhagalpur that vehicles are running without permit will be seized and in this contest requested them to give proper direction in this regard. It has also been stated that the petitioner vide letter dated 05.10.2004 has informed the Divisional Manager, Dumka and on being informed that the private owner has made complaint before the D.T.O., Bhagalpur that vehicles are running without permit will be seized and in this contest requested them to give proper direction in this regard. It has further been stated that the Chief of Operation, BSRTC, Patna vide letter dated 19.09.2006 has issued a directive to the Divisional Manager of Patna, Gaya, Ranchi, Jamshedpur, Dhanbad, Dumka and Bhagalpur to recover a sum of Rs.23.86 lacs from the concerned Depot Superintendent for the period from 2000-2006 against illegal plying of buses in the Inter-State routes for which the Corporation has sustained such losses in terms of penalty against the road tax in relation to forfeited vehicle for want of valid permit, as evident from Annexure-9 to the writ application. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Administrator on 16.01.2006, which was pending as per Annexure-10. Vide order dated 21.06.2007, direction has been issued for recovery of the amount of Rs.2,13,774/- from the salary of the petitioner as per the order of the Administrator, BSRTC, Patna by deducting Rs.1,000/- per month from the salary of the petitioner till the tenure of his services and the rest amount shall be adjusted from the retirement benefits, as per Annexure-11 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the impugned order vide Annexure-11 to the writ application, the petitioner left with no alternative and efficacious remedy, has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the impugned order has been passed without initiation of any departmental proceeding or without issuance of any show cause notice. Learned counsel further submits that the liability has been fixed upon the petitioner for the loss sustained by the Corporation on account of penalty and fine to the State authority, is an imaginary loss, not having been arrived at by any enquiry, therefore, the impugned order is not legally sustainable. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order, is otherwise bad in law and is tainted with arbitrary exercise of power. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order, is otherwise bad in law and is tainted with arbitrary exercise of power. 5. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, wherein, it has been, inter alia, submitted that the Corporation has incurred heavy financial loss to the tune of Rs.2,13,774/- for release of buses which were seized and fined by the D.T.O. Bhagalpur, because, these buses were plying on inter-state routes without road-permit and the petitioner being the Depot Superintendent was solely responsible to ensure valid road-permit. But due to inaction of the petitioner the respondent corporation has suffered such a huge financial loss, therefore, the order of recovery of the same, which has been issued vide memo dated 19.09.2006 from the petitioner is justified in the eye of law. It has further been submitted that the respondent corporation itself is going through financial crisis, due to which salary and other payments of its employees are not being paid regularly and the matter is monitored by the Hon’ble Apex Court itself and in such condition the corporation has incurred huge financial loss due to laxity on the part of the petitioner in performing his duty. Thus, Chief of Operation after assessing various factors has rightly levied the liability of Rs.2,13,774/- which is to be recovered from the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondents-BSRTC has defended the action of the respondents in passing the impugned order on the ground that it is because of the negligence on the part of the petitioner, respondents-Corporation has sustained heavy financial loss and the petitioner is liable to make good the loss suffered by the Corporation. 7. A rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, wherein, it has been, inter alia, submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is baseless. The petitioner was the Depot Superintendent is not responsible for loss, because for issuance of interstate road permit, Head Officer, Patna was supervising the said job, which is evident from the Memo dated 04.12.2003 by which the Administrator has nominated the Divisional Manager, Ranchi as a Nodal Officer for obtaining permit and if any problem arises with regard to permit then concerned Divisional Manager will contact with Nodal Officer for issuance of permit, as evident from Annexure-R/1 to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner. 8. 8. Having bestowed my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions and on perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference due to the following facts and reasons : - (i) Admittedly, the petitioner was the Depot Superintendent at the relevant time, when the impugned order was passed. Against the impugned order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal. It is also an admitted fact that without holding any enquiry or without issuance of any show cause notice, the respondents-authorities has issued the impugned order for recovery, which is not legally sustainable. (ii) The impugned order has been passed without holding any departmental enquiry, therefore, the responsibility fixed by the respondents against the petitioner smacks of arbitrary exercise of power, though in the counter affidavit, the petitioner is said to have acted in a very negligent manner, which led to the Corporation to sustain heavy financial loss, but, in order to punish an employee, proper procedure for infliction of punishment of recovery from the salary ought to have been undertaken. In the absence of any such enquiry, the allegation, howsoever, serious may be, cannot take the place of proof, therefore, in absence of any departmental enquiry with regard to the quantification of loss, the impugned order, in my considered view, cannot sustain. 9. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order warrants interference, therefore, the Office order no.164/2007, issued by the Divisional Manager, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Dumka vide Memo No. 795, dated 21.06.2007 vide Annexure-11, is quashed and set aside. 10. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.