JUDGMENT Dr. B.R. SARANGI, J. - The petitioner, by means of this writ application, seeks to quash the order dated 26.02.2003 passed by the disciplinary authority to recover an amount of Rs.35,831/- from the petitioner in 72 installments i.e. 71 instalments @ Rs.500/- and the last instalment is Rs.331/- towards shortage of 581 Qtls of firewood, 1544 Pcs. of Long Bamboo and 47.20 Cft of Sawn sizes, which was confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority on 17.04.2004 and communicated to the petitioner in Annexure-1, on the pretext that the appellate authority has not complied the principle of natural justice. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner was working as Field Assistant in the Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. since 05.08.1987. When he was in-charge of a sale depot of Phulbani Retail Centre from 23.12.1992 to 03.11.1995, he intimated in his representation regarding possibility of wastage of the stock i.e., due to nonsale, white-ant affect, water shedding and very old stock under open air etc. The petitioner had no idea about managing sales, accounts and stocks in a depot and as such his posting was out of job chart. The opposite party no.3 had passed the shortage in the name of the petitioner, although shortage was due to various real causes, which were being duly admitted by the verification squad on 17.08.1993. Subsequently, an explanation was called for, charge framed, enquiry conducted, second show cause was called for, final order was passed without supplying any relevant documents in connection with the charges. Consequently, the disciplinary authority imposed the following penalty:- “Hence it is ordered to recover an amount of Rs.35,830.50 or Rs.35,831/- from Sri G.K. Panda, F/A in 72 instalment i.e. 71 instalments @ Rs.500/- and the last instalment is Rs.331/- towards shortage of 581 Qts. Of firewood, 1544 pcs L.B. & 47.20 Cft. of Sawan sizes.” In compliance of the order passed by the disciplinary authority, deduction was started from the salary of the petitioner since March, 2003, and 44 installments out of 72 had already been deducted. Though the petitioner preferred appeal against the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority has on 07.08.2006 dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit. Hence this application. 3. Mr. Though the petitioner preferred appeal against the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority has on 07.08.2006 dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit. Hence this application. 3. Mr. Umakanta Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged before this Court that though the appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the disciplinary authority directing recovery of an amount, but the same has been dismissed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, thereby, there is gross violation of the principle of natural justice. It is further contended that the matter should be remitted back to the appellate authority to be reconsidered afresh by affording opportunity of hearing in compliance of principle of natural justice. 4. Per contra, Mr. S.K. Pattnaik, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. P.K. Pattnaik, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 contended that the Inquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted his report on 08.11.2002 holding that the petitioner is liable for shortage but he calculated the value of shortage to be worth Rs.41,998/- as against Rs.60,865.20 as alleged in the charge-sheet. The enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner under letter no. 7415 dated 05.12.2002. Consequentially, the petitioner filed his explanation thereto on 30.12.2002. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority imposed penalty, vide Annexure-6. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the General Manager, Berhampur but did not appear for personal hearing in spite of notice. Further, the appellate authority allowed the appeal in part by reducing the quantum and value of the shortage to Rs.35,831/- by allowing further shrinkage on the stock. The allegation, that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing and thereby there was noncompliance of principle of natural justice, is contrary to the records. Therefore, he seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. This Court heard Mr. Umakanta Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Pattnaik, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. P.K. Pattnaik, learned counsel for opposite party no.1. Pleadings having been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding, called upon to show cause, and on being charge-sheeted he submitted his written statement of defence. Pleadings having been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding, called upon to show cause, and on being charge-sheeted he submitted his written statement of defence. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted and on that basis the disciplinary authority directed for recovery of certain amount, which was confirmed by the appellate authority. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner alleged before this Court strenuously that the appellate authority while hearing the appeal, has not given any opportunity of hearing thereby, there is gross violation of the principle of natural justice. 7. In Y.P. Sarabhai V. Union Bank of India & Anr. AIR 2006 SC 2316 the apex Court held the factual findings of disciplinary authority are not assailable in Courts, unless violation of principles of natural justice or violation of any rules or any material irregularity is alleged and shown. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the learned counsel for the petitioner to establish violation of principle of natural justice by not affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The contention that in appeal stage no opportunity was given, cannot be taken into consideration in view of the fact that the petitioner was given opportunity of hearing, meaning thereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was received by the General Manager-opposite party no. 2 as the appellate authority on 14.07.2003 and the petitioner was noticed to appear on 05.04.2004, but he did not choose to appear in order to give a reply. Consequentially, the order dated 17.04.2004 was passed and the same was communicated to the petitioner through the Divisional Manager, Bhubaneswar, Commercial Division i.e. prior to receiving the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 17.07.2006 passed in W.P.(C) No. 9058 of 2006. Thereby, it cannot be said that the principle of natural justice has not been complied with. Consequentially, the order dated 17.04.2004 was passed and the same was communicated to the petitioner through the Divisional Manager, Bhubaneswar, Commercial Division i.e. prior to receiving the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 17.07.2006 passed in W.P.(C) No. 9058 of 2006. Thereby, it cannot be said that the principle of natural justice has not been complied with. In addition to the same, the shortage which was calculated to be worth Rs.41,998/- as against Rs.60,865.20 in the charge sheet but the quantum of shortage has been determined to Rs.31,831/- and in the meantime the petitioner has already deposited 44 installments out of 72 installments and while entertaining the application, this Court vide order dated 20.12.2006, as an interim measure, directed that the recovery from the salary of the petitioner without prejudice shall only confine to Rs. 250/- per month from the month of January, 2007, and consequently the amount, as directed, has already been recovered. As such, negligence on the part of the petitioner is tell-tale and he was intimated in writing that there was shortage of materials on different counts. If there was actual shortage and the same was calculated, and direction was given for recovery in compliance of the principle of natural justice, this Court is of the considered view that no illegality or irregularity has been committed so as to interfere with the same. 8. There is thus no merit in the writ application, which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. Application dismissed.