JUDGMENT :

ANANDA SEN, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. In this writ application a very short point has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner.

3. In this writ application, the petitioner challenges the order of punishment inflicted upon him on the conclusion of a departmental proceeding by punishment order is dated 29.9.2015 contained in Memo No. 6795(S). By the impugned order the petitioner has been reverted to the lowest stage of pay-scale and further there was a direction to recover the amount of loss from the petitioner.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of punishment is absolutely bad as admittedly no witnesses were examined in support of the charge which was framed against the petitioner. He further submits that the recovery of loss which was ordered by the impugned order is vague as there is no quantification of amount of loss nor it has been mentioned in the impugned order as to what is the amount and in which proportion the same has to be recovered from the petitioner.

5. Counsel for the respondent submits that there was some documents on the basis of which the petitioner was proceeded against. He submits that there was criminal case pending against the pet