IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.795 of 2009 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Deputy Director of Education, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The District Education Officer, Darbhanga 5. The Headmaster, Mithila High School, Balapur, P.S. Manigachhi, Darbhanga … Respondents/Appellants Versus 1. SITA RAM LAL DAS, son of late Chandra Narain Lal Das, resident of village Balapur, P.S. Manigachhi, District Darbhanga … Petitioner/Respondent 1st set 2. The Accountant General of Bihar, Veer Chand Patel Marg, Patna … Respondent/Respondent 2nd set ----------- 5. 11.1.2011 Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent- writ petitioner, we are of the considered view that the ultimate conclusion arrived by the learned Single Judge as with regard to the direction for refund of the amount recovered from the retirement benefit of the respondent- writ petitioner does not suffer from any error, especially when it has been admitted at the Bar that the respondent- writ petitioner after retirement was subjected to an order of both recovery of an alleged excess amount of salary as also reduction of his pension. It is not in doubt that such penal 2 action was taken by the appellant State of Bihar and its officials even without giving notice and/or opportunity of hearing. Such practice has been seriously deprecated not only by the Apex Court but by this Court in a number of cases. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Natarajan, reported in 2010(5) SLR 13, wherein it has been held that the compliance of principles of natural justice is a must in case of taking any action for reduction of pension and/or retiral benefits. In this context it has also been observed that the rule of audi alterm partem has been treated as fundamental to the system established by the rule of law and any action taken or order passed without complying with that rule is liable to be declared void. In that view of the matter, we would uphold the order of the learned Single Judge and direct the appellant State of Bihar and its officials to now give show cause notice and/or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the 3 Surendra/ present order, whereafter the respondent- writ petitioner will file his show cause reply and a final order on the same both with regard to refund of the alleged excess amount drawn by the respondent- writ petitioner as also fixation of his real entitled amount of monthly pension will be taken in a period of next two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that no other recovery will be made from the petitioner and the recovered amount will also be refunded back to the petitioner, if a decision is not taken by the authority in the aforementioned period of two months from the date of filing of the reply by the petitioner. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this appeal is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to G.P.IX. (T.Meena Kumari,J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) 4