IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4321 of 2011 1. Ramakant Singh 2. Suresh Prasad Sinha …Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Ara Municipal Corporation, Ara, Bhojpur 3. The Municipal Commissioner, Ara Municipal Corporation, Ara 4. The Additional Town Commissioner, Ara Municipal Corporation Ara, Bhojpur …Respondents With CWJC No.6077 of 2011 Amar Nath Prasad …Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Ara Municipal Corporation, Ara, Bhojpur 3. The Town Commissioner, Ara Municipal Corporation, Ara …Respondents With CWJC No.6507 of 2011 1. Krishna Kumar Singh 2. Jai Nandan Singh 3. Chandrama Singh …Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department. 2. The Nagar Ayukt, Ara Nagar Nigam, Ara …Respondents With CWJC No.5875 of 2011 Ashok Kumar Singh …Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Ara Municipal Corporation, Ara, Bhojpur 3. The Town Commissioner, Ara Municipal Corporation, Ara …Respondents 2 For the petitioners :Mr. Uma Kant Shukla, :Mr.Rajesh Ranjan, :Mr. Shushil Kumar, :Mr.Shakti Suman Kumar, :Mr. Laxmi Narayan Das For Ara Municipal Corporation :Mr. Nityanand Mishra & :Mr. Santosh Kumar For the State :Mr. A.P.Singh :Mr. Md. Hamid Akhtar, AC to AAG 9 :Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal SC 24 & :Mr. Abdus Shakoor, Ac to SC 24 ----------- 04. 16.08.2011 All these matters raise common issue(s) and, as such, they have been clubbed together and listed for consideration and disposal. In CWJC Nos. 4321/2011, 6077/2011 and 6507/2011 the impugned order(s) is/are contained in Annexure-3, whereas in CWJC No. 5875 of 2011 the order under challenge is contained in Annexure-2 series. All the aforesaid orders have been passed by the Respondent- Municipal Commissioner, Ara Municipal Corporation. The parties agreed that all the applications be heard together and disposed of by common order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and learned counsel for the Respondent-Ara Municipal Corporation. Petitioners in all the writ petitions are the employees of the Ara Municipal Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’). For the financial year 2009-10 and 2010-11 certain Sairat(s) belonging to the Corporation could not be settled by open bid. Petitioners, being the employees of the Corporation, were assigned the job of realization/collection and deposit of the 3 revenue/tolls relating to those Sairats. They could deposit far less amount than the amount/revenue collected from those Sairats in the previous financial year by taking recourse to open bid. The Corporation was thus put to enormous financial loss. An audit was carried out relating to the financial year(s) in question which found that due to assignment of Sairats to the employees of the Corporation, like the petitioners herein, the Corporation had suffered financial loss and the employees to whom the job of collection of tolls /revenue was assigned were legally obliged to replenish the loss suffered by the Corporation. Accordingly, the Respondent-Municipal Commissioner passed the order(s) impugned in the present batch of writ petitions, whereby recovery of amount against each of the petitioner was directed to be made. The amount of recovery in each case was difference of collection for the previous financial year and the financial year(s) during which they were assigned the Sairat(s) for the purpose of collection and deposit of tolls/revenue. Learned counsel while assailing the order(s) submits that the foundation of the impugned order(s) is the audit objection/report. It is contended that the Auditor found culpability on the part of the higher officer(s) of the Corporation also in not monitoring the collection of revenue during the financial year(s) in question when the Sairat(s) was/were assigned to the petitioner(s) for the purpose of collection of tolls/revenue. It is further highlighted that the audit also takes notice that for the fault of the official(s) of the Corporation, 4 those Sairats could not be settled by open bid for the financial year(s) in question. It is also contended that the order(s) inflicting punishment in the shape of recovery has been passed without affording any reasonable opportunity to the petitioners by issuing show cause notice to them and thereby affording them an opportunity to explain the circumstances which led to realization of comparatively lower revenue/tolls during the financial year(s). A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent-Corporation. Referring to averments made in the said counter affidavit, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the authority of the Corporation has now issued notices to all the petitioners to explain the circumstance(s) under which the Corporation suffered heavy loss of revenue during the period(s) when the Sairats were assigned to them for the purpose of collection of revenue/tolls. It is the stand of the respondents that after obtaining their explanation(s) the Corporation shall take appropriate action and/or initiate departmental proceeding against them. On a consideration of materials on record and after hearing both the parties, this court finds from the counter affidavit that respondents have now put the petitioners on notice in order to proceed them departmentally for the loss of revenue suffered by the Corporation for the laches on the part of the petitioners. The respondents are, thus, not enforcing the order(s) whereby recovery of loss sustained by the Corporation 5 was/were directed to be made from the petitioners under whose charge the Sairats were placed for the financial year(s) in question. The petitioners have now been put on notice calling upon them to explain the circumstances. In that view of the matter, this court is of the view that respondents may proceed in accordance with law after obtaining responses/replies of the petitioners pursuant to the notice(s) of show cause issued on each of them. This Court, for the present, would refrain from expressing any view on the proposed action which the Corporation will take on receiving the responses from the petitioners. However, this much is evident from the tenor of the counter affidavit that they have not decided to enforce the orders which have been impugned in the present writ petition(s). This Court, thus, has no difficulty in quashing the order(s) impugned in the writ petitions. Accordingly, the order(s) contained in Annexure-3 of CWJC Nos. 4321/2011, 6077/2011 and 6560/2011 and Annexure-2 serious of CWJC No. 5875 of 2011 passed by the Respondent-Municipal Commissioner are quashed and set aside. The respondents shall, however, will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law pursuant to the notice of show cause issued on each of the petitioner(s). Mr. Shukla learned counsel appearing in support of the application(s) points out that during the pendency of these applications the respondents have deducted certain amount from some of the petitioners of the present batch of writ petitions. It 6 is his contention that since the impugned order(s) have been quashed, the amount deducted from the salary of those petitioners be ordered to be refunded. This court clarifies that any deduction made from any of the petitioners of the present batch of writ petitions pursuant to the impugned order(s) shall be subject to the result of the proceeding/action the Corporation would initiate/pass against the petitioner. This Court would only clarify that in case the petitioners are fully exonerated of the charge(s)/allegation(s) the Respondent-Corporation shall pay back the amount deducted from their salary together with simple interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. All the writ petition are disposed of accordingly. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )