IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13136 of 2010 MD.NAZIM HUSSAIN s/o late Sakhawat Ali @ Sakhawat Ali, resident of Mohalla- Dharampur (Greenland School),Town, P.S. and District- Samastipur. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department,(Higher Education), Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director (Higher Education), Department of human Resources Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga through its Registrar. 5. The Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila Universality, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 6. The Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila Universality, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 7. The Finance Officer, Lalit Narayan Mithila Universality, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 8. The Principal, Samastipur College, Samastipur. ----------- 2 27.8.2010 Petitioner challenges that part of Annexure 14 being letter of Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, as contained in memo no. 341 of 2010, dated 13.7.2010 by which the Principal of Samastipur constituent College of the University is informed ,inter alia, that the petitioner is liable to refund Rs. 5,71,180/- paid to him in excess. Petitioner challenges the same on the ground that the determination was made after considering all the facts by the Pay Revision Committee and he is given due benefits and promotion. Neither the State auditor nor the University could come to such a finding on the facts on issue and more so without prior notice to the petitioner and adjudication in this regard. 2 Having heard learned counsel for the University and the petitioner, in my view, the challenge is simple. How can a person be made liable to refund such amount of money without the person being heard. On this short issue itself that part of the communication of the Registrar, which relates to recovery of money from the petitioner, is set aside. In case the Registrar of the University still is of the opinion that any amount is due, he must issue a specific show cause notice to the petitioner giving ground why such allegation is being made. He would grant opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against the said demand. Upon consideration of all materials and without being prejudiced by the State audit’s ex parte appraisal , the Registrar would decide the matter and pass a speaking order. It is only thereafter any demand can be raised against the petitioner. If petitioner is aggrieved by the said determination he would have his remedy as provided in law. Till such time, the matter is not so decided, the petitioner would continue to receive his remuneration as he has been receiving and there will be no demand palced against him. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)