IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8973 of 2005 BINDESHWARI SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 7. 5.5.2010. Heard Mr. Om Upadhyay for the petitioner and Mr. S.S.Sundram representing the Notified Area Committee, Piro, Bhojpur. The petitioner had superannuated from the post of Tax Daroga from the Notified Area Committee, Piro, in the district of Bhojpur with effect from 31.1.2003. The writ petition was filed for payment of post retiral benefits. The petitioner, in para-5 of the writ petition, admits to the initiation of a departmental proceeding alleging financial irregularities and which, according to him, was pending on the date of filing of the writ petition. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent no.4, the Executive Officer, and in which it has been stated that a departmental proceeding was initiated for enquiry into the alleged defalcation of Rs.3,08,389/- out of which amount, the petitioner had deposited Rs.2,63,044/- and a balance of Rs.70,468.59 was yet to be deposited. The matter was adjourned enabling the learned counsel for the respondents to ascertain the 2 status of the departmental proceedings as also the status regarding the payment of the claims of the petitioner. A supplementary counter affidavit sworn by the D.C.L.R. cum Executive Officer, Piro has been filed today during the course of proceedings and in which it is admitted that there is no paper available in the office to show whether any departmental proceedings was initiated against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent Board submits that the very fact that the petitioner, on his own volition, has deposited the alleged defalcation amount, is an admission to his involvement in the financial irregularity. He further submits that the petitioner in such circumstances is also to bound to remit the balance amount of Rs.70,468.59. It is further submitted that as the Notified Area committee was not functional for some while and that the Chief Councillor and the Deputy Chief Councillor have been elected only recently, hence, the matter has been posted for final decision on 11.5.2010 in relation to the payment of the post retiral dues of the petitioner. Having considered the rival submissions and materials available on record, the writ petition is 3 disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to demonstrate before the respondent authorities by filing a representation and explaining the details of expenses of the alleged defalcated amount with supportive documents and calculative details and which shall be considered by the Board and a final decision would be taken after consideration of the representation filed in this regard by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation. Needless to add that the post retiral dues of the petitioner as found admissible, should also be paid to him within the period stipulated above. The writ petition stands disposed of with the liberty/directions aforesaid. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)