IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16089 of 2007 Smt. Kalawati Devi, wife of Sri Shiv Nath Kumar Azad, resident of Village Nawadih, P.S. Sugauli, in the District of East Champaran at Motihari. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari. 3. Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, East Champaran, Motihari. 4. Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Raxaul. 5. The District Provident Fund Officer, East Champaran, Motihari. -------- Respondents ----------- 2 23.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner, now a retired A.N.M., while continuing in service was subjected to a common order as with regard to the recovery of a sum of Rs. 78,215/- from her payable salary, allowance etc. to compensate the deposit in her provident fund account. Such order was not passed only in respect of the petitioner but in respect of a large number of employees as against whom it was said that they were paid excess amount of salary because their minimum prescribed amount of contribution in the general provident fund had not been deducted from their salary. Such order, having been passed on 26.6.2007 by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer namely In-charge Medical Officer, 2 Primary Health Centre, Raxaul, the petitioner is said to have filed a number of representations claiming that as a matter of fact, she had never taken any advance from the provident fund account and, therefore, the direction to recover the amount of Rs. 78,215/- was wholly uncalled for and in fact based on non-est and non-existent circumstances. The respondents have filed counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that such deduction was made on the basis of an audit objection, wherein it had been pointed out that the general provident fund loan taken by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 74,000/- had not been refunded by her and that a sum of Rs. 450/- was also due against her on the head of festival advance. Additionally the Auditors of A.G had found that a sum of Rs. 4,465/- was recoverable from the petitioner, on the head of excess of house rent drawn by her beyond her actual entitlement. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, she has however, straightway denied to have ever taken any advance/loan from her general provident fund account and 3 in fact, she has gone to add that she had never filed even an application for grant of loan/advance from her general provident fund. As with regard to the rest of the amount, the petitioner has not disputed the dues either on the head of festival advance or on the head of excess house rent allowance drawn by her. From the aforesaid rejoinder the case of the petitioner appears that it was actually one Ramesh Kumar, Clerk, who had indulged into a set of forgery for the purpose of drawing provident fund advance against the names of several employees and in this racket, somehow the petitioner also became a victim. In the considered opinion of this Court such a disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated under the limited parameters of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The plea of the petitioner that the respondents, before passing such an order, were required to issue a show-cause notice and/or affording opportunity of hearing can have no exception in law but even the petitioner does not claim in the writ application that such an order contained in Anenxure-1 seeking to recover a sum of Rs. 4 78,215/- was passed without any show-cause notice and/or opportunity of hearing to her. From the tenor of her representation, it however, becomes clear that the petitioner had raised her grievance that she had never taken loan from the general provident fund account and in fact she had not even filed any application for this purpose and in support of this fact, the petitioner had relied on a communication of the office of the District Provident Fund Officer. Amidst these facts, as the matter absolutely relates to recovery of an amount of general provident fund loan from the petitioner, in the considered opinion of this Court, the competent authority to decide such dispute would be the District Provident Fund Officer, who has in his custody the application filed by the petitioner for grant of general provident fund loan. In the event, if there is any proof including an application for withdrawal of general provident fund loan by the petitioner, it would be quite easy for the aforesaid authority to come to a final conclusion. Considering all these aspects, this Court would remit the matter back to the 5 District Provident Fund Officer, East Champaran, Motihari for taking a final decision on the basis of the record. If, however, the District Provident Fund Officer would find no connected records in his office and all the connected records are found to be lying only with the controlling/drawing and disbursing authority of the petitioner in the office of Civil Surgeon, East Champaran or in the Primary Health Centre, Raxaul, it will be the duty and responsibility of the Civil Surgeon, East Champaran to make an enquiry as with regard to the claim of the petitioner and if he finds that there is no proof of having applied nor obtained such amount of loan of Rs. 74,000/-, he would issue an advice to the District Provident Officer to refund such amount to the petitioner without awaiting for the result of the departmental enquiry or the criminal case against Ramesh Kumar, who is said to be the actual person behind withdrawal of all such forged withdrawal of amount of general provident fund loan in the name of the number of employees including petitioner. This Court, however, would make it clear that it has not made any final 6 determination on the merit of the claim of the petitioner and has simply remitted the matter back to the aforementioned authorities for taking their final decision strictly in accordance with law. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already retired from service, such a decision by the competent authority in the manner indicated above must be taken as early as possible but in no event, later than six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)