IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12247 of 2004 VINOD KANT JHA S/O LATE HALDHAR JHA, R/O VILL. HARIPUR GAURI DAS TOLE, PO-HARIPUR DIH TOLE PS KALUWAHI (KHAJAULI), DISTT- MADHUBANI--PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECY. CUM-COMMISSIONER, DEPATT. OF IRRIGATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF,DEPATT. OF IRRIGATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT,PATNA 4. SECY. RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPATT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 5. CHIEF ENGINEER, RURAL ENGIEERING ORGANISATION NO.II, VISHWASWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILY ROAD, PATNA 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANISATION, WORKS DIVISION, DARBHANGA, DISTT- DARBHANGA 7. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DARBHANGA 8. B.D.O. JALEY BLOCK DISTT-DARBHANGA 9. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATOR, SWARN REKHA PROJECT, DEPATT. OF IRRIGATION, ADITYAPUR SWARN REKHA BHAWAN, ADITYAPUR, DISTT- JAMSHEDPUR 10. CHIEF ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANISATIONSWARN REKHA BHAWAN ADITYAPUR,DISTT- JAMSHEDPUR 11. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANISATION, KHAR KAI DAM CIRCULE, ADITYAPUR, JAMSHEDPUR. 12. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR DISTRIBUTION DIVISION- III, DIMA MANGO, JAMSHEDPUR----RESPONDENTS ----------- 9 26.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Initially a sum of Rs. 1, 50000 and odd was sought to be recovered from the petitioner as the cost of the tiles for which he did not account for when he handed over charge while being posted at Jamshedpur. This amount has later on been reduced to a sum of Rs. 85,800/- on examination of the explanation offered by the petitioner and the same has already been recovered and forwarded to the authority of the State of Jharkhand since the matter for non-handing over charge or damaged tiles has related to Jharkhand State when he was posted at Jamshedpur. But these are not the matters which could be adjudicated in a writ application under Article 226 of the - 2 - Constitution of India because if the action was taken against petitioner without giving him an opportunity of hearing and without considering his explanation then may be the Court would have had an occasion to examine this aspect. But these are the issues which could best be examined and considered by the concerned authority who have knowledge about the ground reality of the issue. Court therefore refuses to interfere with the action taken against the petitioner but would give him an opportunity that he has freedom to move before the authority relating to his claim and the authority may consider this aspect of the matter provided he furnishes cogent and valid explanation even at this stage. This writ application is disposed of with the above liberty. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)