JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - 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 of the Memo No. 163/2007, issued by the Divisional Manager, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Dumka vide Memo No. 794, dated 21.06.2007 vide Annexure-7 to the writ application, whereby the order has been passed for deduction of Rs. 1,000/- per month from the salary of the petitioner, as installment towards adjustment of the loss alleged to have been sustained by the Corporation to the tune of Rs. 3,09,119/-. 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, 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 Godda, the petitioner submitted an application before the Divisional Manager, BSRTC, Dumka for issuance of Road permit for Bhagalpur-Godda route on 16.12.2003 and in the said letter, the disturbance created by the private owners with regard to issuance of road permit and time schedule was also intimated to the said authorities. 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 Divisional Manager has issued a letter to the District Transport Officer, Bhagalpur, requesting to release the vehicle, which has been seized by the District Transport Officer, Bhagalpur. The Chief of Operation, BSRTC, Patna vide letter dated 19.09.2006 issued a directive to the Divisional Manager of Patna, Gaya, Ranchi, Jamshedpur, Dhanbad, Dumka and Bhagalpur to recover a sum of Rs. The Chief of Operation, BSRTC, Patna vide letter dated 19.09.2006 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 Inter-State routes for which the Corporation has sustained such losses in terms of penalty against road tax in relation to forfeited vehicle for want of valid permit, as evident from Annexure-5 to the writ application. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Administrator on 06.10.2006, which was pending as per Annexure-6. Vide order dated 21.06.2007, direction has been issued for recovery of the amount of Rs. 3,09,119/- 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-7 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the impugned order vide Annexure-7 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 Respondents-Corporation has incurred huge financial loss for release of bus which was seized and fined by the D.T.O. Bhagalpur, because, these buses were playing on inter-state routes without valid road permit and the petitioner being the Depot Superintendent at that time was solely responsible to ensure that no bus is plying on any route without valid road-permit, but due to inaction on the part of petitioner, the buses were seized and fined and in getting them released Corporation had to spend huge sum. Thus, the order of recovery of the loss from the petitioner is justified and in the interest of justice. It has further been submitted that the onus of plying buses on inter-State as well as on other routes after timely payment of its taxes, arrangement of valid road permit is sole responsibility of Depot Superintendent (i.e. petitioner), but due to laches on the part of petitioner, who allowed the bus to ply on interstate route without valid road-permit, the buses were seized by DTO and levied fine and therefore, the petitioner has rightly been held responsible for the loss suffered by the Corporation. 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 inter-state 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. Having bestowed my anxious consideration to the rivalised 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 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 by this Court and accordingly, the impugned order vide Memo No. 163/2007, issued by the Divisional Manager, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Dumka vide Memo No. 794, dated 21.06.2007 vide Annexure-7 is quashed and set aside. 10. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.