Patna High Court
Ashok Kumar Singh vs The Bihar State Ware Housing ... on 8 April, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5138 of 2016
======================================================
Ashok Kumar Singh Son of Shri Late Ayodhya Singh Resident of Village-
Sarvodaya Nagar Road No. 3 PS Rupaspur district Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Bihar State Ware Housing Corporation having its Office at B/2 First
Floor, Maurya Lok Complex, P.S. Kotwali, District-Patna through its
Managing Director.
2. The Managing Director , The Bihar State Ware Housing Corporation having
its Office at B/2 First Floor, Maurya Lok Complex, P.S. Kotwali, District-
Patna.
3. The Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Aurangabad through its
Managing Director.
4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation
Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanket, Advocate
For Resp nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Rai, Advocate
For the BSFC : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mrs. Silpi Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 08-04-2025
Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Learned
Counsel for Bihar State Ware Housing Corporation and Learned
Counsel for Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief/s:-
"I. For quashing of the Letter No.225/Hka.fua.,
iVuk dated 02.02.2016 (annexed as
Annexure-22) issued by the Respondent No.2
by which the petitioner has been asked to
Patna High Court CWJC No.5138 of 2016 dt.08-04-2025
deposit Rs.20,49,521/- (Twenty Lakhs Forty
Nine Thousand Five Hundred Twenty One)
being the cost of storage loss of 826.90
quintals of rice caused to Bihar State Ware
Housing Corporation within 7 days or that
money would be deducted from the salary of
petitioner staring from February and rest
would be deducted from service benefits.
II. For directing the Respondent no.2 not to
proceed for recovery of the aforementioned
amount.
III. Any other relief or reliefs for which the
petitioner is found entitled in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was posted as Superintendent in Bihar State Ware
Housing Corporation, Arrah (hereinafter referred to as
'BSWHC'). Counsel submits that petitioner was incharge of a
store whose physical condition was extremely poor and in this
regard, his predecessors had written various letters to the
officials of BSWHC with regard to the broken and damaged
roofs of godown, broken tin sheets/plate, broken shutter, lack of
repair of fencing/boundary wall and broken asbestos sheet of
different sheds. Counsel submits that the petitioner after joining
on the post of Superintendent, BSWHC, also wrote several
Patna High Court CWJC No.5138 of 2016 dt.08-04-2025
letters to the concerned respondent authority with regard to the
status of the godown which were in dilapidated condition.
Counsel submits that the storage loss has been made only due to
the dilapidated condition of the godown on which the highest
authority of the Warehousing Corporation has paid no heed in-
spite of fact that series of letters which are annexed in the writ
petition has been made. And as such, petitioner alone cannot be
held responsible for such storage loss. Counsel further submits
that prior to issuance of Annexure-22 which is impugned here
i.e. Letter No.225/Hka.fua., iVuk dated 02.02.2016, he has filed a
representation on 22.12.2015 indicating the entire situation of
the godown, but no decision has been taken by Respondent no.2
on the said representation. And instead thereof, Letter
No.225/Hka.fua., iVuk dated 02.02.2016 has been issued in which
decision for realization of Rs.20,49,521/- (Twenty Lakhs Forty
Nine Thousand Five Hundred Twenty One) has been made to
realize from the petitioner. Counsel submits that in addition to
that, petitioner has directly written a letter to the Managing
Director, BSFC, Patna in this regard, but no action has been
taken. Counsel further submits that in the counter affidavit, there
is no denial at all of the pleadings made by the petitioner and an
evasive reply has come.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5138 of 2016 dt.08-04-2025
4. Learned Counsel for Bihar State Ware Housing
Corporation submits that since, petitioner was Superintendent of
the said godown and for any storage loss, he is responsible for
the same. But in addition to that, Counsel submits that for the
conduct of business, the Warehousing Corporation has framed a
rule in the year 1958 namely, Bihar State Warehousing
Corporation Staff Regulations, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as
'Rule of 1958'). According to the said rule, any decision taken
including recovery from pay of whole or part of the pecuniary
loss caused to the Corporation by the employee is an appealable
decision under rule 25 of the Rule of 1958. Counsel further
submits that the petitioner has moved before this Hon'ble Court
without availing the said appeal which is available under the
Rule of 1958.
5. Learned Counsel for Bihar State Food and Civil
Supply Corporation submits that there is no direct role of the
petitioner, rather, the food grains of Bihar State Food
Corporation used to be kept in the godowns of Bihar State
Warehousing Corporation. And therefore, it is a dispute between
the petitioner and his employer.
6. After going through the pleadings, it transpires to
this Court that even after repeated representations from the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5138 of 2016 dt.08-04-2025
petitioner and his predecessors, no response was made by the
Respondent nos.2 & 4 and all of a sudden, it was directed to
realize the amount from the petitioner's salary. It also transpires
to this Court that respondents have not taken a decision on the
representation filed by the petitioner and without taking any
decision on his representation, has issued the said letter
No.225/Hka.fua., iVuk dated 02.02.2016 in the form of a decision
imposed on petitioner.
7. After hearing the parties and upon perusal of the
documents filed by the petitioner and respondent, it transpires to
this Court that conduct of business used to be dealt by the Bihar
State Warehousing Corporation in accordance with the Rule of
1958. Section 25 of the said rule states as follows:-
"Section 25 of the Bihar State Warehousing
Corporation Staff Regulations, 1958, likely
pertains to the appellate remedy for employees
within the corporation. It provides a
mechanism for employees to appeal decisions
or actions taken against them by the
authority."
8. From perusal of the said rule, it become crystal
clear that the decision of the Managing Director is appealable
before the Appellate Authority i.e. the Chairman, Bihar State
Patna High Court CWJC No.5138 of 2016 dt.08-04-2025
Ware Housing Corporation, Patna and the petitioner has filed
the present writ petition for challenging the said remedy under
the said forum.
9. In this view of the matter that the said decision is
appealable, this Court restrain himself from passing any order
on merit and hereby directs the petitioner to prefer appeal
against the order of Managing Director, Bihar State
Warehousing Corporation (Respondent no.2). The Appellate
Authority is hereby directed to take all those points which the
petitioner has raised in the writ petition as well as in his
representation including the points that there were no response
by the higher authority on the repeated information from the
petitioner and his predecessors.
10. Till final decision taken on appeal, Letter
No.225/Hka.fua., iVuk dated 02.02.2016 (annexed as Annexure-22)
shall not be operative, if the said amount has not been realized
by the respondent State Warehousing Corporation, Patna till
date.
11. Petitioner is hereby directed to prefer appeal
before the Chairman, Bihar State Ware Housing Corporation,
Patna within 30 days and at the time of deciding the appeal, the
Chairman, Bihar State Ware Housing Corporation, Patna shall
Patna High Court CWJC No.5138 of 2016 dt.08-04-2025
take such decision also that on the petitioner's representation,
why no action has been taken by the concerned respondents and
he is directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order within 90
days from the date of production of this order. Till then, Letter
No.225/Hka.fua., iVuk dated 02.02.2016 (annexed as Annexure-22)
shall not be operative if not acted upon.
12. Delay, if any in filing the appeal is hereby directed
to be condoned.
13. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ
petition is hereby disposed off.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 12/04/2025
Transmission Date NA
