IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2083 of 2011 RAGHUNATH GUPTA, son of Late Ramashish Gupa, Resident of village- Shanti Nagar, Near I.T.I Factory Road, Bhagwati, Dumra, police Station - Sitamarhi, Dist- Sitamarhi. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 3.2.2011 Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application is directed against the order bearing memo No. 1208 & 1011, dated 14.8.2010 & dated 03.11.2010 (Annexure 1 & Annexure 1/1), passed by respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner has been directed to refund a sum of Rs. 1,76,000/-, and to face departmental proceeding. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was at the relevant point of time posted as Junior Engineer, Sitamarhi. He was given Rs. 4, 26,000/- by way of advance for completion of a project. He preferred C.W.J.C No. 11905 of 2009. The petitioner contended before the Division Bench that the order of the learned single Judge in writ petition appears to the 2 tantamount to initiation of a departmental proceeding which was disposed of by the learned single Judge by his order dated 10.9.2009 (Annexure-2), whereby respondent No. 3 was directed to consider the petitioner’s defence, the various vouchers towards adjustment of the deduced amount. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner thereafter preferred L.P.A. No. 1318 of 2009, which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 23.3.2010 (Annexture-3), whereby respondent no. 3 was directed to conduct a preliminary enquiry with respect to the question of adjustment of the amount in question. The Division Bench also observed that “we may further hasten to clarify initiation of a departmental proceeding is within the domain of the employer and, therefore, we refrain from saying anything on that score.” Pursuant to the direction of the Division Bench, respondent No. 3 has passed the impugned order, whereby he has held that the petitioner has not been able to account for a sum of Rs. 1, 76, 000/-, and has further directed for initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner. 3 It is evident on a perusal of the materials on record that the petitioner has shown a designed dispensation towards the Government, and has also engaged this Court in diverse proceedings in a situation where he had admittedly taken the advance to complete the Government project, and had not produced the necessary vouchers. In view of the finding in the preliminary report of respondent No. 3 and impugned order before us, it is evident that he is now liable to refund sum of Rs. 1, 76, 000/- which, prima facie, appears to be a case of embezzlement. Therefore, order for initiation of departmental proceeding in an action on the lower side. We, therefore, do not find fault in the order of respondent No. 3 for initiation of departmental proceeding. We do not find any merit in this petition. This writ petition is dismissed. Prakash (S.K.Katriar, J.)