IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9624 of 2010 ANIL PRASAD SINGH, S/O LATE SHATRUGHAN PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILLAGE JAMUI , P.O. SHADIYA, P.S. SAHARSA, DISTRICT SAHARSA, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT BHAWAN NAGAR, GANGAJALA, WARD NO. 13, P.S. AND P.O. SAHARSA, DISTRICT SAHARSA. …….. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT,GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, KOSHI DIVISION, SAHARSA. 3. THE COLLECTOR, SAHARSA. 4. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT,PATNA. 5. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT,PURNEA. 6. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, DRAINAGE CIRCLE, PURNIA. 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DRAINAGE DIVISION, SAHARSA. 8. THE TREASURY OFFICER, SAHARSA. 9. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL,BIHAR,PATNA. ……….. RESPONDENTS ----------- FOR THE PETITIONER : MR.KRISHNA KANT SINGH, ADV. FOR THE RESPONDENTS: MR.RAKESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, A/C TO G.P.4 ----------- 2. 20/04/2011 Office order under the signature of Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Purnea dated 11.1.2010, as contained in Annexure-1, is under challenge in this case. From the impugned order it appears that the petitioner had been wrongly given promotion to junior selection grade with effect from 7.1.1987 and benefits of A.C.P. with effect from 19.8.2006, on account of which he has drawn salary more than what he was entitled. Hence, the said promotions have been 2 cancelled by the impugned order and order for recovery of the excess amount from his pensionary benefits has been passed. The order does not show that before passing of the said order any opportunity was given to the petitioner or any show cause was asked from him. From the counter affidavit it appears that only a letter was issued to the petitioner to produce his certificate of passing of accounts examination, vide Annexure-B. This letter was not enough to satisfy the requirement of compliance of Principles of Natural Justice. If the respondents intended to cancel the promotion given to the petitioner and realize the alleged excess payment paid to him, specific show cause notice was required to be issued to him. Moreover, since the petitioner has already superannuated, respondents could take any action against him only under section 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules and not otherwise. Apparently, no proceeding under the said provision has been initiated against him in compliance to the principles of natural justice. 3 In the circumstances, impugned order, as contained in Annexure-1) is not sustainable in law and the same is accordingly quashed. As the impugned order passed by the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department stands quashed, the consequential orders of recovery etc. shall also stand quashed. However, Respondents are granted liberty to take steps against the petitioner afresh in accordance with law, if that so decide. This writ application is accordingly allowed with aforesaid liberty. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)