IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2213 of 2008 SHAIL DEVI, WIFE OF LATE SURENDRA SINGH (STORE KEEPER IN THE OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE (INFORMATION) BIHAR, PATNA) AT PRESENT RESIDING OF VILLAGE – CHAKDARIA, P.S. VAISHAILI, DISTRICT VAISHALI (BIHAR) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, 2. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE(INFORMATION), BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- 4 17.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Government Advocate No. 4 appearing for the State. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to recovery of sum of Rs. 41,819.04/- pursuant to the office order, as contained in Memo no. 396 dated 14th of August 2003, vide Annexure 8 and a sum of Rs. 82,894/- pursuant to the office order, as contained in Memo no. 719, dated 24th of October 2007 vide Annexure – 15. It is submitted that the aforesaid amount has been recovered allegedly on the ground that there was shortage of articles from the store where husband of the petitioner was store-keeper. It is further submitted that the petitioner represented before the concerned authority against the aforesaid recovery by filing representation vide Annexure 16, however, the same has not been 2 disposed of and as such the present writ application has been filed. Learned counsel for the State submits that so far the recovery of rupees forty one thousand and odd as per Annexure-8 is concerned, in response to the notice dated 2nd of September 1999, Annexure 5 the reply of the petitioner as contained in Annexure- 6 was considered and thereafter Annexure-8 has been passed considering the reply of the husband of the petitioner. As regards the recovery of 82,894/- and odd submission of the petitioner is that it does not appear from the order as contained in Annexure- 15 that how the aforesaid amount has been arrived to be recovered from the petitioner in view of the fact that the enquiry entrusted to find out the alleged shortage of the articles could not be finalized vide Annexure- 14 and as such the Government should entrust the matter to another officer to make an enquiry, so that the matter could be clear. However, after 20 days, the order contained in Annexure15 was issued directing for recovery without making any enquiry. In the above circumstances, for expeditious of his pending claims, the petitioner proposes to file a fresh representation before the respondent No. 3, stating the aforesaid grievances as highlighted in this writ 3 application. In case, such representation is filed before the respondent no. 3 with copy of the relevant documents in support of his grievances, the above respondent shall consider the claim of the petitioner as raised in the representation in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation which may be disposed of by passing a reasoned order. Upon consideration, if the representation on the petitioner is accepted, the amount recovered may be refunded back to the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months thereafter. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Jagdish/- (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J)