IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9482 of 2003 DEO LAKHAN PASWAN Son of Bijeshwar Paswan, resident of village-Yamunaapur, Police Station Bihta, District-Patna. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2.The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.The Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4.The Executive Engineer Rural Development Special Division, Supaul. 5.The Treasury Officer, Madhubani. ----------- 6 8/1/2010 Heard Mr. Siya Ram Shahi,, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “That the present writ application is being filed for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in quashing the order no.214 dt. 21.5.03 issued by the Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar (contained in Annrxure-7) which was communicated to the petitioner vide memo no.612 dt. 21.5.03 issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna whereby the petitioner has been awarded punishment of recovery of Rs.89,996/- in a proceeding under Rule 55 A of the Civil Services (Classification, control and appeal) Rules and for any other relief or reliefs for which petitioner is entitled under law as well as on facts.” Mr. Shahi with reference to the aforementioned relief would submit that as a matter of fact there was no 2 misconduct on the part of the petitioner so as to necessitate drawing of a departmental proceeding against the petitioner after 13 years of the event in terms of Rule 55 A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, especially when all that was alleged against the petitioner was non-adjustment of certain advance given to him for completing government work. Mr. Shahi, in fact, has invited attention of this Court towards Annexure-10, a communication of the Executive Engineer, Supaul, wherein it has been stated that the amount of Rs.89,996=66 paise has been sent for pre-check and adjustment of the same would be made in terms of the decision taken in future. Mr. Shahi would submit that actually this is the amount for which departmental proceeding was drawn. In the nut shell, Mr. Shahi would submit that it is the case of only accounting adjustment and for this the petitioner should not have been harassed. This Court would find that earlier when plea of the petitioner, as stated above, with regard to Annexure- 10, was taken, counsel for the State was given a direction to file supplementary counter affidavit, but counsel for the State submits that he has received no instruction and as such the averment made in the supplementary affidavit filed on 22.3.2006 could not be answered. In view of the fact that the aforementioned 3 amount of Rs.89,996=66 paise has already been recovered from the petitioner, this Court would direct the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioner and to take a re-look of the entire accounting and if it is found that the amount of Rs.89,996=66 paise as per communication of the Executive Engineer dated 7.7.1988 (Annexure-10) has already been adjusted by way of pre- check, the amount recovered from the petitioner will be refunded. Alternatively, if the advance of the aforementioned amount, of course, on pre-check has not been approved/adjusted, the government will not be liable to refund the amount back to the petitioner. Such exercise however must be completed by the Respondent no. 2, within a period of six months of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations/directions this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)