Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 973 of 2011 CNR No.ODHC010319012011 Pramod Kumar Parida ..... Petitioner Mr. A. Behera, Advocate -versus- MD, Orissa State Warehousing Corporation of India, BBSR & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. N.K. Mohanty, Adv. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 07.08.2026 Order No. 12 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard. 3. The present Writ Petition is filed inter alia challenging order dated 29.12.2010 so passed by Opp. Party No.2 basing on the order passed by Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-1. Vide the said order, Petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,52,633/- towards shortage value of stocks relating to Food Corporation of India pertaining to Kesinga Warehouse. It is the case of the Petitioner that prior to directing the Petitioner for such recovery, no proceeding was ever initiated nor a show cause was also issued. 3.1. It is further contended that as provided under the Orissa State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulation, 1985, recovery is a major punishment so provided under Rule 18 of the said Rules. Page 2 of 3. 3.2. It is accordingly contended that since no proceeding was ever initiated against the Petitioner with due determination of the amount so indicated in Annexure-1 and even a show cause was never issued prior to issuance of Annexure-1, the impugned order needs interference of this Court. 3.3. It is however contended that by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court on 19.01.2011, though no recovery was made, but taking into account the order passed by this Court on 22.05.2026, wherein the interim order was vacated, the aforesaid amount so indicated in Annexure-1, has been recovered from the retiral benefits of the Petitioner. 3.4. Making all these submissions, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since the amount was never determined in accordance with law and principle of natural justice has not at all been followed, recovery of the amount so indicated in Annexure-1 from the retiral benefits of the Petitioner is illegal and Petitioner is entitled to get refund of the same with quashing of the demand notice issued under Annexure-1. 4. Mr. N.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party- Corporation on the other hand though contended that such an amount so indicated in Annexure-1 was determined with issuance of a show cause, but this Court after going through the counter affidavit so filed nowhere found any show cause being issued to the Petitioner prior to issuance of the impugned demand at Annexure-1. Page 3 of 3. 4.1. Document available at Annexure-A, nowhere shows that Petitioner was issued with the show cause and in consideration of his reply, Petitioner was held liable to pay the amount. 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made and since it is found that Petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.6,52,633/- under Annexure-1 without initiation of any proceeding and issuance of a show cause even, this Court is of the view that in absence of the same, Petitioner could not have been held liable to pay the amount and recovered from his retiral benefits. 5.1. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to quash order dated 29.12.2010 so issued by Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-1. While quashing the same, this Court directs the Opp. Party-Corporation to refund the amount indicated in Annexure-1 and so recovered from the retiral benefits of the Petitioner, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Jyoti