IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13615 of 2002 UMESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA son of Sri Tarkeshwar Lal Srivastava, resident of Quarter No. D/2 Chief Engineer, Irrigation Colony Bar Bungla Dihri-on-son, Rohtas. …. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Chief Engineer Water Resources Department, Dehri. 3. Superintending Engineer Son Canal Modernization Circle, Dehri 4. Executive Engineer Son Baraj Division, Indrapuri, Rohtas. ….. Respondents ----------- 6. 08.07.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer made in this writ application is to keep in abeyance the effect of an order contained in Memo no. 1513 dated 1.11.2002 (Annexure-1) whereby and whereunder a sum of Rs.45,537=62/- was sought to be recovered from the petitioner in 15 instalments on account of its being outstanding due against him. A counter affidavit has already been filed in this case by respondents wherein it has been stated that the said amount was actually advanced to the petitioner and since it was not properly accounted by the concerned authority, Executive Engineer had no option but to get it recovered from the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the averments made in the writ petition and on the basis of instruction would submit that there was no such outstanding due against the petitioner and he has 2 been unnecessarily subjected to order of recovery. In the opinion of this court, all these thicketed question of fact cannot be adjudicated especially when the petitioner has not approached controlling authority of the cadre mainly Engineer-in- chief. It is plain and simple concept of service jurisprudence particularly in the engineering department that advances are given to the engineers for the purpose of meeting their expenditure in the project or the work allotted to them. If such advances are not properly accounted, the immediate controlling and drawing and disbursing authority i.e. the Executive Engineer has full power and jurisdiction to recover the same either under his own order or on the basis of orders of his superior from the concerned person including by making entry in LPC ( Last pay certificate) if he is no longer under his direct control and stands transferred to any other post. It would thus be very difficult for this Court to decide as to whether the petitioner denying the liability is correct or the respondents fastening such liability have taken a correct decision. In the opinion of this court, this aspect of the matter can be effectively gone into by the Engineer- in-chief alone and therefore this writ petition is 3 disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned Engineer-in-Chief who will examine the whole matter in the light of a fresh representation to be filed by the petitioner with a copy of this order and would pass a speaking order within a period of four months from the date of filing of such representation. It goes without saying that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of either parties and the matter has to be decided on its own merit by the concerned Engineer-in-Chief. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application stands disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)