IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12013 of 2009 GIRIJA NANDAN THAKUR . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 07. 23.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. On 31.12.1998 in pursuance of an audit objection for the year 1979-82 a recovery of Rs. 4.68 lakhs was ordered against the petitioner. He came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9934 of 2000. The Court noticed that even a proceeding for a punishment under Rule 55A of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules read with 168 of the Bihar Code Miscellaneous Rules, could not be imposed without a proper show cause notice and opportunity to defend. Suffice it to notice that the aforesaid provisions deal with imposition of a minor punishment. Recovery is undoubtedly a minor punishment. It is asserted that the fresh order dated 12.11.2008 came to be passed without an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause, and the grounds being furnished to him suffering from the same vice noticed by the Court in the writ application aforesaid. The petitioner is stated to have retired on 31.7.2008. 2 Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents. The fact that the fresh order dated 12.11.2008 has been passed without complying the directions of the court noticed in the writ application as above stand beyond the pale of any controversy from the pleadings in the counter affidavit. This Court considers the same as sufficient justification to hold that the impugned order dated 12.11.2008 is not sustainable. Learned counsel for the State then seeks leave that the respondents may be permitted to proceed afresh by giving a show cause notice. He submits that the bona fides of the respondents is evident from the attempt to give a post decisional hearing. This Court is satisfied that in the nature of the punishment of a post decisional hearing merits no consideration. Insofar as the opportunity sought to proceed afresh is concerned, the respondents have themselves alone to blame for not having availed the opportunity properly. Considering that the petitioner has retired, the lapses lie with the petitioner, this Court is not satisfied to subject him to the ghost of his past services at such belated stage afresh. If any recovery has been effected in 3 pursuance of the impugned order dated 31.12.2008 or 12.11.2008, it is directed to be refunded to the petitioner forthwith. The order dated 12.11.2008 is quashed. If the petitioner opined that he has certain other claims in pursuance of the present order, he is at liberty to represent, when this Court expects the respondents to act in accordance with law and not to generate avoidable litigation. The application is allowed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)