IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14944 of 2005 GOPAL PRASAD Versus BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD& ORS ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Shivajee Pandey For the B.S.E.B. : M/s.Subhash Kumar Verma, Brajesh Verma and Jainendra Kumar Pushkar. ------- 05. 20.08.2008 Vide order No. 262 dated 16.10.2004 contained in Annexure-1 respondent Electricity Board in their wisdom decided to make deduction from the salary of the petitioner and in fact recovered to the tune of Rs.1,87,777.93. This order does not indicate the reason why action has been taken against the petitioner in this manner except that there seems to be an audit objection raised at some point of time in July, 2004. Petitioner was still in service and he protested against such a decision because this decision was passed even without proper hearing in this regard. Petitioner has offered a detailed explanation justifying pay scale which he has drawn all these years which would be evident from Annexure-10 which is dated 22.12.2004. Since nothing came to be done the present writ application has been filed. Since 2005, as usual, respondent Electricity Board could not file counter affidavit and the matter has finally been taken only now. Certain explanations have been offered now in the counter affidavit as to why the order impugned came to be passed. But this court is not satisfied with the stand taken by them. The order of this kind which has come to be passed on an audit objection at the fag end of service of the petitioner requires some consideration and justification. In fact, - 2 - Full Bench decision rendered in the case of Ram Binod Singh and others v. The Bihar State Electricity Board and others, reported in 2007 (3) PLJR 398 does lay down the law in this regard. If the Court takes strict view of the matter then the explanations offered by the respondents may not stand. However, keeping in mind the larger revenue and public money involved, at this stage the Court quashes the order No. 262 dated 16.10.2004 contained in Annexure – 1 with a direction that the respondents shall pass speaking order now on the explanation offered by the petitioner contained in Annexure-10. Till such a decision is taken by them in the light of Annexure-10, no further deduction shall be made from the petitioner. Final decision taken by the respondents will govern future course of action with regard to the claim of the petitioner. It is clarified that in case respondents find the explanations offered by the petitioner to be in consonance with various provisions and circulars, then he shall be entitled to claim refund of the deducted amount which has been effected pursuant to Annexure-1 dated 16.10.2004. The writ application stands allowed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)