IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1331 of 2009 Arwind Kumar Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 2. 04.07.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State as also the learned Counsel for the Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Nigam”). The writ petition was filed as far back as 27.1.2009 after serving two copies in the office of the Advocate General and the Nigam also. Neither the State Government nor the Nigam have considered it their duty to assist this Court in timely and quick dispensation of justice by filing a counter affidavit so that the litigation may be brought to an end. The litigation shall continue even after the present order courtesy to the State Government and the Nigam. The petitioner is stated to be a Junior Engineer in the Road Construction Department, sent on deputation to the Nigam. He has been repatriated to his parent department. The controversy relates to certain deductions made from the salary while he was on deputation in the Nigam. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that sending of his LPC from the department of deputation to parent department is not an issue, but certain deduction of large amount have been made from his salary which visits him with adverse and prejudicial consequences without any opportunity of being told why those deductions are being made combined with an opportunity to represent against the same leading to a final order of deduction. Counsel for the Nigam tried to persuade the Court that details of the deductions are mentioned in the LPC. This attitude of the Nigam only generates litigation. The contention of the petitioner is not that the 2 deductions have been made but why have they been made which the Nigam refuses to tell him even before this Court. This matter was adjourned on Friday (1.7.2011) to enable the Counsel for the Nigam and the State Government to take instruction if a show cause notice was given to the petitioner at any stage. Counsel for the State makes no statement on this aspect. Counsel for the Nigam is unable to inform the Court from the instructions received by him that specific written show cause notice was given to the petitioner. An order affecting deduction from the wages of a salaried person does not require any explanation that it visits him with an adverse civil consequence, prejudicing him. Recovery of any amount from his salary amounts to visiting the petitioner with a minor punishment. The basic essential requirement was compliance with principles of natural justice. This is not new law but a well established and settled law. If the respondents insist to arrogate unto themselves powers which the law does not vest them with the Court has no option but to set aside such orders. The Court therefore holds that in absence of any show cause notice having been given to the petitioner, the deductions made from his salary in the LPC are held to be wholly arbitrary and unjust. They are accordingly set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to reimbursement of all deductions made within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order but without prejudice to the rights of the respondents. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.) 3