IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5597 of 1998 Smt. Chandrawati Prasad, wife of Sri Advart, Mott Resident of Mohalla Gola Road, Police Station Kanhauli, Dist. Muzaffarpur. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Director, Primary Education, New Secretariat Building, Patna. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Head Mistress, Government Middle School, Rahua, Police Station Mushahari, Dist. Muzaffarpur. -------- Respondents ----------- 5 22.7.2011 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account that the impugned order contained in letter no. 1250 dated 6.5.1988 of D.S.E., Muzaffarpur has been passed visiting the petitioner with penal consequence of recovery from her salary without giving her any notice and/or opportunity of hearing, this Court would find it difficult to approve the same and consequently, the grievance of the petitioner, to that extent as against her recovery, must be upheld. The aforesaid impugned order in fact was not even communicated to the petitioner in the first instance rather the same was sent to her controlling authority, the Headmaster of the school of the petitioner. Nonetheless, now the petitioner has annexed this order in 2 this writ application and has also come to know of the reason for such deduction. In that view of the matter, this Court would give liberty to the petitioner to file her self contained representation treating the impugned order to be a show-cause notice for justifying the payment that was made to her. The District Programme Officer, Muzaffarpur being successor of the District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur would consider such pleas of the petitioner raised in her representation against the proposed recovery of excess amount from her salary and if it is found that the petitioner was entitled to such amount, he would not recall the impugned order dated 6.5.1998 but would also direct for refund of amount already recovered from the petitioner. On the other hand, if the respondent District Programme Officer, Muzaffarpur would find that the petitioner was not entitled to such amount, especially in view of the fact that in the counter affidavit, it has been specifically asserted that in the relevant period, the petitioner had not worked on the 3 post and, therefore, was not eligible and entitled for such promotion, the District Programme Officer, Muzaffarpur having considered the defence of the petitioner in her show cause reply, would pass a reasoned order by reiterating the important of impugned order of recovery. It goes without saying that till such an exercise is completed, the petitioner will remain protected on the basis of the interim order of this Court passed on 28.7.1998 staying any recovery pursuant to the impugned order. If the petitioner, however, does not file her show-cause reply against the proposed recovery in the manner indicated above within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, the order of recovery contained in Annexure-14 & 15 shall be given effect to without waiting any further for the petitioner to agitate this issue. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. 4 Let a copy of this order be sent to Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar for its strict compliance by the District Programme Officer, Muzaffarpur. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)