IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12812 of 2002 MD.YAHIYA ANSARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4 21.5.2009 Heard. From bare perusal of the writ application, it would transpire that the dispute relating to payment of salary of the petitioner has emerged only because he has not handed over the charge despite being given information through post as also in the newspaper. Counsel for the respondents in their counter affidavit in fact have also explained that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to explain the use of the money or materials so advanced to him but he has failed to do so till date and as such, the part of his salary was paid on the basis of Last Pay Certificate (LPC) showing certain dues against the petitioner. A dispute of this nature as to whether the petitioner had handed over charge or not and whether he had accounted for the advanced money and materials can hardly be looked into by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2 Such a dispute can be better gone into by the fact finding authority and in that view of the matter, the petitioner, if he is still sanguine of his assertion as made in this writ application that he had no such dues against him, he may approach the Secretary of the Road Construction Department by filing a compact representation enclosing the evidence, if any, whereafter the Secretary of the Road Construction Department will take his final decision. It goes without saying that if the Secretary of the Department would find the petitioner to be not liable to the extent indicated in the impugned LPC, he may also direct for release/refund of the amount to which the petitioner is found entitled. With the aforementioned observations/ direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)