IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1826 of 2009 1. Devendra Prasad Singh, son of Late Manoranjan Prasad Singh, resident of village-Dudhaila, P.S.-Andharamanth, District Madhubani. 2. Pankaj Kumar Choudhary, son of Shri Laxman Choudhary, resident of village-Chakdah, P.O. and P.S.- Madhubani, District- Madhubani. 3. Manoj Kumar, son of Late Anant Lal Mishra, resident of Village and P.O.- Lalyanpur Chowk, P.S.- Kalyanpur, District- Samastipur. 4. Avinash Kumar Jha, son of Sukhchandra Jha, Resident of Village and P.O.- Dulha, P.S.-Rahika, District- Madhubani. 5. Pankaj Kumar Thakur, son of Late Maya Nand Thakur, Resident of Village-Phulparas, P.S.-Phulparas, District- Madhubani. ……………………………………………….. Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Additional Secretary, Human Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Director, (Primary Education), Bihar, Patna. 5. The District Magistrate, Madhubani. 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Madhubani, Bihar. 7. The Chief Accountant General (Audit), Bihar, Patna. …………………………………………….. Respondents ----------- 2 5/2/2009 Heard counsel for the parties. It is unfortunate that an Officer in the rank of District Superintendent of Education is not in a position to understand the order of this Court. It would really raise a question of being competent to hold such post. This Court on the earlier occasion having noticed that recovery of pay can only be made from the petitioners and 2 other similarly situated persons if there is direct proof that the petitioners have not worked on the post as was pointed out by the Accountant General in its audit report, had remitted the matter back to the District Superintendent of Education, Madhubani to examine individual cases of the petitioners in the light of the evidence to be furnished by them and the similarly situated other persons for deciding as to whether they had really worked in the period in question. Unfortunately, even when the petitioners had adduced evidences of their working, not a word has been said about them and again a mechanical stereotyped routine order, that too in the prescribed format by only filling the name of the persons, has been passed and issued by the D.S.E.. This would only reflect the mechanical approach and/or callous attitude of the respondent District Superintendent of Education. Under such situation, this Court is constrained to again set aside the impugned order as contained in Annexure-1 3 and direct the District Superintendent of Education to examine individual cases of each of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons and to record finding on the basis of evidence adduced by the petitioners and other persons who were earlier subjected to order of recovery and place his comments on such individual cases before the District Education Establishment Committee which is the competent authority under the Cadre Rule to take any decision with regard to recovery of amount. That being so, this Court would direct the petitioners or any other persons similarly situated to file a fresh individual representation along with copy of order of this Court and the earlier order of this Court dated 11.7.2007 enclosing all relevant evidence of their working, whereafter the District Superintendent of Education as directed above will individually examine and submit his report thereon to the District Education Establishment Committee for taking a final decision. 4 Till such exercise is completed, there would be no further recovery from the petitioners as was directed even in the earlier order of this Court dated 11.7.2007. This Court accordingly while remitting the matter back would direct both the District Superintendent of Education as also the District Education Establishment Committee to comply the order of this Court dated 11.7.2007 as also the present order in the letter and sprit within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar