JUDGMENT : Per Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. Heard Mr. Piyush Chitresh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Shahi, the learned A.C. to A.A.G. appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 29.03.2008 by which order of recovery of amount of Rs.3,14,200/- from the petitioner has been made and two increments from the salary of the petitioner has been ordered to be withheld with cumulative effect. 3. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner assumed charge of Minor Distribution, Sub-Division No.2, Ghatshila, Galudih in the District of Singhbhum on 01.03.1997. The petitioner was show-caused vide Memo No.2991 dated 29.07.2005 wherein charge of purchasing cement without requirement was made against him. It was alleged that the petitioner has requisitioned in total 6,000 bags of cement by which only 632 bags of cement were actually used and rest 5,368 bags of cement remained unutilized. As the same has been purchased without need and subsequently the said cement became set and was, thus, spoiled and became unusable, the petitioner made representation on 01.08.2005 disputing and denying the allegation against the petitioner. Thereafter, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. In the departmental proceeding, the enquiry officer has found that the charge against the petitioner has been proved. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, the learned counsel assailed the impugned order on the ground that inspite of the request made by this petitioner for supply of the document, the document has not been supplied to the petitioner. He further submits that no enquiry proceeding whatsoever was ever initiated, conducted or held inasmuch as no date of hearing or any date for presentation of document or explanation was ever notified or held by the enquiry officer. He submits that based on his reply the impugned order has been passed and according to him there is violation of principle of natural justice. To substantiate his argument, he has relied in the judgment rendered in the case of “Oryx Fisheries Private Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.” reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427 . Paragraph nos.24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow: “24. This Court finds that there is a lot of substance in the aforesaid contention. Paragraph nos.24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow: “24. This Court finds that there is a lot of substance in the aforesaid contention. It is well settled that a quasi-judicial authority, while acting in exercise of its statutory power must act fairly and must act with an open mind while initiating a show-cause proceeding. A show-cause proceeding is meant to give the person proceeded against a reasonable opportunity of making his objection against the proposed charges indicated in the notice. 25. Expressions like “a reasonable opportunity of making objection” or “a reasonable opportunity of defence” have come up for consideration before this Court in the context of several statutes. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Khem Chand v. Union of India, of course in the context of service jurisprudence, reiterated certain principles which are applicable in the present case also. 26. S.R. Das, C.J. speaking for the unanimous Constitution Bench in Khem Chand held that the concept of “reasonable opportunity” includes various safeguards and one of them, in the words of the learned Chief Justice, is: (AIR p. 307, para 19) “(a) An opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence, which he can only do if he is told what the charges levelled against him are and the allegations on which such charges are based;” 27. It is no doubt true that at the stage of show cause, the person proceeded against must be told the charges against him so that he can take his defence and prove his innocence. It is obvious that at that stage the authority issuing the charge-sheet, cannot, instead of telling him the charges, confront him with definite conclusions of his alleged guilt. If that is done, as has been done in this instant case, the entire proceeding initiated by the show-cause notice gets vitiated by unfairness and bias and the subsequent proceedings become an idle ceremony. 28. Justice is rooted in confidence and justice is the goal of a quasi-judicial proceeding also. If the functioning of a quasi-judicial authority has to inspire confidence in the minds of those subjected to its jurisdiction, such authority must act with utmost fairness. Its fairness is obviously to be manifested by the language in which charges are couched and conveyed to the person proceeded against.” 4. If the functioning of a quasi-judicial authority has to inspire confidence in the minds of those subjected to its jurisdiction, such authority must act with utmost fairness. Its fairness is obviously to be manifested by the language in which charges are couched and conveyed to the person proceeded against.” 4. He further submits that the petitioner has already been retired in the year 2009. 5. On the other hand, Mr. R.K. Shahi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that there is no violation of principle of natural justice. He submits that in paragraph no.7 of the counter-affidavit there is specific statement to the effect that the enquiry officer after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner has submitted the enquiry report. He further submits that due to the petitioner, a huge financial loss of Rs.6,28,400/- has been caused to the exchequer of the State Government, and accordingly, a recovery of Rs.3,14,200/- and stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was ordered against the petitioner. There is no illegality in the impugned order. 6. Since the petitioner has already retired, this Court has to find out as to whether after remanding back the matter to the concerned authority any fruitful purpose can be served or not. In this regard, a reference can be made to the case in “Dharampal Satyapal Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati & Ors.” reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519 and “Escorts Farms Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, U.P. & Ors.” reported in (2004) 4 SCC 281 . Paragraph no.39 of the judgement rendered in “Dharampal Satyapal Limited” (supra) is quoted hereinbelow: “39. We are not concerned with these aspects in the present case as the issue relates to giving of notice before taking action. While emphasising that the principles of natural justice cannot be applied in straitjacket formula, the aforesaid instances are given. We have highlighted the jurisprudential basis of adhering to the principles of natural justice which are grounded on the doctrine of procedural fairness, accuracy of outcome leading to general social goals, etc. Nevertheless, there may be situations wherein for some reason—perhaps because the evidence against the individual is thought to be utterly compelling—it is felt that a fair hearing “would make no difference”—meaning that a hearing would not change the ultimate conclusion reached by the decision-maker—then no legal duty to supply a hearing arises. Nevertheless, there may be situations wherein for some reason—perhaps because the evidence against the individual is thought to be utterly compelling—it is felt that a fair hearing “would make no difference”—meaning that a hearing would not change the ultimate conclusion reached by the decision-maker—then no legal duty to supply a hearing arises. Such an approach was endorsed by Lord Wilberforce in Malloch v. Aberdeen Corpn., who said that: (WLR p. 1595 : All ER p. 1294) “… A breach of procedure … cannot give [rise to] a remedy in the courts, unless behind it there is something of substance which has been lost by the failure. The court does not act in vain.” Relying on these comments, Brandon L.J. opined in Cinnamond v. British Airports Authority that: (WLR p. 593 : All ER p. 377) “… no one can complain of not being given an opportunity to make representations if such an opportunity would have availed him nothing.” In such situations, fair procedures appear to serve no purpose since the “right” result can be secured without according such treatment to the individual.” 7. Paragraph no.64 of the judgment rendered in “Escorts Farms Ltd.” (supra) is quoted hereinbelow : 64. Right of hearing to a necessary party is a valuable right. Denial of such right is serious breach of statutory procedure prescribed and violation of rules of natural justice. In these appeals preferred by the holder of lands and some other transferees, we have found that the terms of government grant did not permit transfers of land without permission of the State as grantor. Remand of cases of a group of transferees who were not heard, would, therefore, be of no legal consequence, more so, when on this legal question all affected parties have got full opportunity of hearing before the High Court and in this appeal before this Court. Rules of natural justice are to be followed for doing substantial justice and not for completing a mere ritual of hearing without possibility of any change in the decision of the case on merits. In view of the legal position explained by us above, we, therefore, refrain from remanding these cases in exercise of our discretionary powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.” 8. In view of the legal position explained by us above, we, therefore, refrain from remanding these cases in exercise of our discretionary powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.” 8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court finds that the charge against the petitioner is of loss of Rs.6,28,400/- to the State exchequer and even if the matter is remanded back to the concerned authority to proceed afresh, no fruitful purpose can be made out and it will be a futile exercise. In view of the law laid down in the case of “Dharampal Satyapal Limited” and “Escorts Farms Ltd” (supra) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.