IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9270 of 2010 1. Jyoti Kumar Verma S/O Late Bhuneshwari Prasad R/O- C/O Vikash Mohan Kumar, D. Block, Patna, At Present Working In The Office Of Superintendent Of Laboratories, Bihar, Sinha Library Road, Chajjubagh, P.S.- Kotwali, Distt.- Patna 2. Damodar Sah S/O Sri Ram Chandra Sah R/O State Counsil Of Education Research And Training Campus Mahendru, P.S. Sultanganj, Distt.- Patna Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Human Resources Development Department, Government Of Bihar Having His Office At Vikash Bhawan, P.S. Sachivalaya, Patna 2. The Finance Commissioner Government Of Bihar, Having His Office In Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Secondary Education Having His Office At Vikash Bhawan, Patna 4. The Hassan Waris S/O Name Not Known Incharge Director, State Counsil Of Education Research Training, Having His Officer At Mahendru, Patna ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Mukteshwar Dayal, Adv. Mr. Vikas Mohan, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha, G.P.-14 Mr. Subodh Kumar, Adv. ------------ 5. 24.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. In view of the statement made in Paragraph-11 of the writ application that the impugned order was in violation of the principles of natural justice read in conjunction with Annexure- K to the counter affidavit, the reply submitted by the petitioner in pursuance of a show cause notice issued, leave is sought to withdraw the application for pursing departmental remedies in so far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned limited to the issue for cancellation of the time bound promotion by 2 the impugned order dated 5.5.2010. The Court makes no observation with regard to the same. The application is dismissed as withdrawn with regard to petitioner no. 2 limited to the issue of the first time bound promotion. In so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, it is not in controversy that he was granted first time bound promotion on 7.3.1995 with effect from 31.12.1992. The same has been cancelled on 5.5.2010 and orders for recovery issued on 7.5.2010 nearly 15 years later. The specific assertion of the petitioner that this order visiting him with adverse civil consequences was not passed in compliance with the principles of natural justice after an opportunity to defend the time bound promotion, has not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit. At the stage, the Court is not concerned with the merits of the matter whether the petitioner was entitled to time bound promotion or not in law. The Court is only concerned with the decision making process whether it was in consonance with the law. Once it stand revealed that the impugned order dated 5.5.2010 is in 3 violation of the principles of natural justice, the same becomes unsustainable without further more. The subsequent order for recovery dated 7.5.2010 automatically collapses. If any recovery has been made from the petitioner no. 1 in pursuance of the impugned orders, it cannot be carried further unless and until a decision with regard to the legality of the time bound promotion is first arrived at in consonance with the law when the recovery already made shall naturally have to abide by such final decision. I.A. No. 5695 of 2010 has been filed by both petitioners questioning another order dated 7.5.2010 which purports to cancel the confirmation of their services with retrospective effect from 12.1.1996. The I.A. application specifically alleges in Paragraph-6 that it has been so done again in violation of the principles of natural justice. The counter affidavit filed after service of the I.A. application does not deal with the allegation. Additionally, the Court finds that the impugned order dated 7.5.2010 contains no recital that a show cause notice had been issued to the petitioners. The order dated 7.5.2010 cancelling their confirmation therefore becomes 4 unsustainable on that ground alone for reasons of the aforesaid discussion. The impugned orders dated 5.5.2010 and ordering recovery dated 7.5.2010 are therefore set aside in so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned. The order dated 7.5.2010 cancelling the confirmation of services with retrospective effect is set aside with regard to both the petitioners. The writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated respectively. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)