IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1545 of 2009 Ram Sajjan Prasad Rai Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 2. 05.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents despite service of two copies of the writ petition in the office of the Advocate General more than two and a half years ago on 29.1.2009. Pass over granted in the previous week for the purpose has also not been helpful. In the nature of the very short controversy raised in the writ petition, no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the writ application pending before this Court awaiting a counter affidavit at the leisure of the respondents. To do so, on the contrary may amount to denying quick excess to justice for the petitioner by giving undue latitude to the respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 8.3.2007 by which while forwarding his L.P.C., the Consolidation Officer, Ujiarpur District Samastipur has made deductions for a sum of Rs. 15,558/-. The second grievance is stated to have been redressed. 2 It is the specific assertion of the petitioner in Paragraph-9 of the writ application that before effecting the deduction, the Consolidation Officer never gave a show cause notice to the petitioner. At this stage, the Court is not concerned with the merits of the deduction but the manner in which the decision has been taken. What defence the petitioner may or may not have and whether the defence shall be plausible or acceptable is not the concern of the Court at the moment. The deduction from his salary undoubtedly visits him with adverse civil consequences. It could not have been done in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner is stated to have filed his representation with regard to the same on 13.4.2007 and his queries under the Right to Information Act informed him that the Consolidation Officer is sitting over the matter. In AIR 1964 SUPREME COURT 506 (State of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda) it has been at Paragraph-7 as follows:- “7….The point is not whether his explanation would be acceptable, but whether he has been given an opportunity to give his explanation. We cannot accept the doctrine of "presumptive knowledge'' or that of "purposeless enquiry'', as their acceptance will be subversive of the principle of "reasonable 3 opportunity''……” Let the petitioner appear with a copy of the present order before the respondent no. 5, the Consolidation Officer, Ujiarpur. The latter is directed to first examine from the records if a show cause notice was given to the petitioner. If the deduction was made without a show cause notice, it shall stand declared as illegal and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been allowed. What the respondents may propose to do thereafter is for them to decide and not for the Court to advise. If a show cause notice had been given to the petitioner before the deduction was made, the Consolidation Officer shall demonstrate the evidence to the petitioner and if it was served on the petitioner or there is matter to suggest that the petitioner evaded service with which the petitioner shall also be confronted with due opportunity to deny the same, depending on the findings that may be arrived at by the Consolidation Officer, the impugned deduction may require no interference. The writ petition may be deemed to have been then dismissed. Let the Consolidation Officer in the aforesaid manner pass a reasoned and speaking order after granting a personal opportunity to the 4 petitioner within a maximum period of 15 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)