IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13049 of 2007 Dr.Bhagya Narain Choudhary, son of late Nand Kishore Choudhary, resident of Mohalla Laxmipur, Ward No. 18, Town and P.S. Rosera, District Samastipur … Petitioner Versus 1. The L.N.Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar Darbhanga through its Registrar 2. The Vice Chancellor, L.N.Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga 3. The Principal, U.R.College, Rosera, District Samastipur … Respondents ---------------------------------- 2. 16.11.2011 Having heard counsel for the parties this Court is of the opinion that though it may be well within the competence of the employer, in this case L.N.Mithila University, to recover the amount of loss caused by an action of the employee but then before doing so the employee has to be given a notice and/or afforded an opportunity of personal hearing. In the present case the respondents University and its officials are said to have recovered a sum of Rs. 24,000/- from the petitioner on the ground that he in capacity of principal of U.R. College, Rosera had allowed two persons namely Satish Kumar Singh and Avinash Kumar Nayak, part time Instructors, to continue in service of the College on daily wages without there being any authority of law and as such, the remuneration paid to them at the rate of Rs. 1500/- for the period eight months i.e. 1st June, 1999 to 1st January, 2000 totaling a sum of Rs. 24,000/- was to be recovered from him. In the considered opinion of this Court if such an action was to be taken against the petitioner it had to be taken 2 while he was continuing in service. The petitioner had superannuated on 31.1.2000 and therefore, an action taken for recovery of a sum of Rs. 24,000/- even on the strength of an order of this Court dated 9.12.2002 in C.W.J.C.No. 4172/2001 could be passed after giving notice and/or opportunity of personal hearing to him. This Court, however, in order to conclude the whole issue has also gone into the earlier order of this Court dated 9.12.2002 in C.W.J.C.No. 4172/2001 and from the same it does not transpire that any direction had been gone to recover the amount of remuneration paid to the aforesaid two part time Instructors from the petitioner. Therefore, if the authorities of the University were satisfied that the University had to pay such amount to the two part time Supervisor on account of any misconduct on the part of the petitioner and/or by over-stepping his power as the Principal of the College in course of engaging two part time Instructors for a period of eight months they could have taken action against him strictly in accordance with the provisions made in the Statutes of the Universities as with regard to recovery of the amount of loss caused to the University. That having been not done this Court must quash the action taken by the authorities as with regard to recovery of Rs. 24,000/- from the petitioner. At this stage Mr. A.B.Ojha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University, would submit that as a matter of fact the University had never directed to make recovery 3 of such amount from the petitioner and infact it was the successor of the petitioner who in capacity of principal of the College had made such a deduction on his own. If that be the case, it has to be held that the successor of the petitioner holding the post of Principal or Professor In-charge of the College had no such power to withhold such amount much less deduct any amount from the retirement benefit of the petitioner and accordingly, this Court would direct the present Principal/ Professor In-charge of the College to immediately refund the amount of Rs. 24,000/- to the petitioner. It is also make clear that as the authorities have themselves taken a plea before this Court that they did not intend to recover the amount of Rs. 24,000/- from the petitioner there would be now no liberty to initiate any proceeding against the petitioner in this regard. This application is, accordingly, allowed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/