IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6873 of 2007 Krishna Murari, Son of late Bankey Das, Resident of Village and Post Office Dosut, Police Station Wena, District Nalanda at present Assistant Professor-cum-Junior Scientist (Senior Scale), Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Dairy Technology, Jagdeopath, Post Office B.V.C., Patna-14. ------ Petitioner Versus 1. The Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar through its Registrar, having its head quarters at and post office Pusa, Police Station-Pusa, District Samastipur. 2. The Vice-Chancellor, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, At and Post Office Pusa, District Samastipur. 3. The Registrar, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, At and Post Office Pusa, District Samastipur. 4. The Comptroller, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, At and Post Office Pusa, District Samastipur. 5. Dr. Ayodhya Prasad, Son of not known to the petitioner, the Dean, Faculty of Veterinary and Animal Sciences (Acting) Bihar Veterinary Cofllege, Campus Patna-14. 6. The Associate Dean-cum-Director, Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Diary Technology, Patna-14. 7. Dr. Chenpal Singh, Son of not known to the petitioner, Acting Associate Dean-cum-Director, Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Dairy Technology, Jagdeopath, Post Office B.V.C., Patna-14. 8. The Assistant Controller, Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Dairy Technology, Jagdeopath, Post Office B.V.C. Patna-14. ---------- Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Anand K. Ojha, Adv. For the R.A.U. :- Mr. A.K. Upadhay, Adv. Mr. Chandra Mohan Singh, Adv. Mr. Prakash Mahto, Adv. Mr. Samir Kumar Sinha, Adv. 3 17.08.2010 Heard Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Rajendra Agricultural University. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1(I) Issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Officer Order No. 245/SGIDT dated 28.12.06 (Annexure-8) issued under the signature of Acting 2 Associate Dean-cum-Director, Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Dairy Technology, Patna, the Respondent no.7 thereby and there under an amount of Rs. 1,55,172=70 (Rupees one lakh Fifty five Thousand one hundred seventy two and paise seventy) is ordered to be recovered from the Petitioner though the recovery from the salary has been started with retrospective effect in as much as that the recovery from the salary @ Rs. 5648.70/- per month has been given effect to by recovering from the salary of the month October 2006 onward despite the fact the impugned order was issued on 28.12.06 which has always to remain with the prospective effect. II. Issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to refund the amount already deducted illegally from the monthly salary as well as from the arrears pay amounting to Rs. 76,198=70/- (Rupees seventy six thousand one hundred ninety eight and paise seventy only) till date and stop further deduction till the decision of this writ application. III. Issuance of declaration to hold the impugned order of deduction as illegal, unconstitutional, unjustified and without jurisdiction. IV. Issuance of further declaration 3 to hold the action of Respondent no.7 and 5 as actuated by malice and issuance of further declaration that the University has no right and authority to reopen the matter which stood closed on satisfaction of the reply submitted more than a decade back.” Mr. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the aforementioned prayer, would submit that the impugned order dated 28.12.2006 is unsustainable only on the ground that the same was passed without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He would also submit that the basis of the University for making such huge reduction to the tune of Rs. 1,49,172/- was a bond allegedly executed by the petitioner but when the petitioner demanded such copy of the bond either from the University or by way of taking recourse to a Right to Information Act, the University failed to produce copy of such bond, which made the petitioner to refund the said amount to the University. Counsel for the University on the other hand, while supporting the impugned order, would draw attention of this Court to 4 the order of the University dated 7.1.1991 by which the petitioner was given the order of the University to join Ph.D. program in I.I.T. at Kharagpur as a sponsored candidate of the University as also the terms and conditions of such period of deputation enabling the petitioner to complete the Ph.D. program in I.I.T., Kharagpur. He would accordingly submit that when the petitioner having left the service of the University on 7.1.1991 continued in I.I.T., Kharagpur till February, 1993 and left the Ph.D. program in the midstream, the University, having lost not only the money paid by way of salary to the petitioner for this period but also by way of sponsoring the petitioner as an official student of the University, was entitled to recover the amount as per terms and conditions undertaken by the petitioner in the bond. He would further submit that the petitioner having never questioned the existence of such a bond in the show-cause reply filed by him on 12.5.1993 in response of the show-cause notice of the Registrar of the University dated 3.5.1993 cannot be now permitted to turn around after 13-14 years for assailing the impugned order on the 5 ground of either violation of principle of natural justice or non-existence of a bond executed by the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, it would be clear from the scheme of things as enumerated in Annexure-1 & 2, the order of the University, facilitating the petitioner to join Ph.D. program as a sponsored candidate that it was by way of recognition of the petitioner’s merit that he was allowed to undergo the Ph.D. program in the I.I.T., Kharagpur. The University, as a model employer, in keeping with the provisions made in the Government of India and the Government of Bihar by way of study leave and study grant, had allowed full salary to the petitioner for the period that was to be consumed by him in completing the Ph.D. program. In such a situation, if the petitioner left the Ph.D. program in the midstream as is apparent from the letter of the Assistant Registrar of I.I.T. Kharagpur dated 5th April, 1993 that the name of the petitioner had been struck off from the rolls of I.I.T. from 2.2.1993 and that the I.I.T. had decided that the petitioner shall not be allowed to continue his study in that 6 institute again that by itself would be good enough to show that the University had wasted its money over the petitioner for the aforementioned period. As a matter of fact, when the things were quite fresh in the month of May, 1993 soon after the receipt of the letter of the Assistant Registrar of the I.I.T. dated 5.4.1993, the petitioner was subjected to a show-cause notice which for the sake of clarity is quoted hereinbelow:- “RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVRESITY, BIHARPUSA (SAMASTIPUR_-848125 No.________/RAU Pusa, the May 1993 From: The Registrar. To, Sri Krishna Murari, Asstt. Professor, Dairy Engg. Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Dairy Technology Dhelwan, Lohiyanagar, Patna-20. Sir, You were permitted to join as a sponsor candidate at I.I.T., Kharagpur for doing Ph.D. with effect from 1st January, 1991 which you accordingly did. It was subsequently reported by the Assoc. Dean-cum-Director, SGIDT that you have returned back to Sanjay Gandhi Instt. of Dairy Technology without completing the Ph.D. programme and have submitted joining report. In this connection a reference was made to I.I.T., Kharagpur whose reply bearing no. III/SS-16/Ch E/5/91 dated 5th April, 1993 is enclosed herewith. The Asstt. Registrar, (PRG) I.I.T. informed that your name has been struck off the rolls of the Institute from 2.2.93 as well as that you shall not be allowed to continue your studies in that Institute again. In this connection, I am directed to request you to kindly explain as to the circumstances in which you left your studies incomplete and why the salaries paid to you along with damages as mentioned in the Bond executed by you be not recovered from your salary. Your explanation must reach this office by 15th of May, 1993. 7 Yours faithfully Sd/- (M.S.Haque) Registrar. Memo No. 686/RAU. Pusa, the 3rd May, 1993. Copy forwarded to the Assoc. Dean-cum- Director, SGIDT, Patna for information and necessary action. Sd/- (M.S.Haque) Registrar. Memo No. 380/SGIDT, Patna m Dated 10th May Y’93. Copy forwarded to Sh. K. Murari, Asstt. Professor (D.Engg.) S.G.I.D.T., Patna for information and necessary action. Sd./- 10.5.1993 S.G.I.D.T., Patna” As would be apparent, the petitioner was put to a direct show-cause notice wherein it was made clear to him that on account of leaving his studies incomplete, he had become liable for refunding his salary along with the damages in terms of the bond executed by him. The petitioner infact soon thereafter had filed his detailed reply on 12.5.1993, which reads as follows:- “From: Sri Krishna Murari, Asstt. Professor (Dairy Engg.) S.G. Institute of Dairy Technology, Patna-20. To The Registrar, Rajendra Agril. University, Pusa (Samastipur). Through: The Assoc. Dean-cum-Director, S.G.I.D.T., Patna. Sir, In response to your letter No. 686, dated 3rd May’ 1993, I beg to state the following:- 1. The climatic conditions of Kharagpur never suited me and I always kept very 8 poor health since my joining there. I was continuously suffering from gastro-intestinal disorder including Jaundice, Hepatitis etc., which prevented my stay at I.I.T., Kharagpur, (please refer the enclosures 1 to 6). 2. due to irregular payment of the salary by the University, I was put in acute financial crisis and the crisis was sometime unbearable. In this regard, I requested the concerned authorities many times and wrote a letter to the Hon’ble Vice-Chancellor also, which was subsequently forwarded to the Assoc. Dean-cum-Director, S.G.I.D.T., Patna for necessary action. (Please refer the enclosure 7 & 8). But nothing fruitful came out and all efforts of mine to over come this problem want in vain. 3. Inspite of my poor health and acute financial crisis, I continued my studies and put best of my efforts. As a result, I have published a paper in an international journal of repute “Journal of Fermentation Technology and Bio-engineering” and completed the registration formalities (i.e. Synopsis of research programme) after completing all the course work and delivering an open seminar on my Ph.D. topic, as a requisite of the Ph.D. Programme. 4. Regarding striking off my roll from I.I.T., Kharagpur, it cannot be so as I have registered for the current semester ending in the month of June’93 and paid the fees etc for the (Please refer the enclosure 9). For your kind information, I have duly applied for the withdrawal from the programme as per rules and regulations 9 of I.I.T., keeping in view of my poor health. My physical condition deterioted to such an extent that I was asked even to consult a psychiatrist (Please refer the enclosure 3). Acute financial crisis was an added factor for my pitiable conditions. Under the above circumstances, I was left with to other alternatives except to join back so as to take support of my parents and family. Moreover, there are a number of precedence of joining back to the institute, discontinuing the Ph.D. programme in between due to one reason or others, such as Dr. R.N. Singh, Director (Planning) R.A.U.; Dr. J.N. Pandey, Assoc. Prof. (VPH), B.V.C.; Sri J.N. Singh, Sr. Scientist (Plant pathology), A.R.I.; Sri R.N. Singh, Jr. Scientist (Stat.) A.R.I., Patna et. I, therefore, request your goodself to kindly consider my case sympathetically. This is for your kind information and necessary action please. With kind regards. Yours faithfully Sd./- 12.5.93 (Krishna Murari)” As would be apparent from the aforesaid detailed show-cause reply filed by the petitioner that though he took every possible ground on the earth to justify his abandoning the course in the midstream of his Ph.D. program in I.I.T., Kharagpur, he had never refuted that there was no bond executed by him which could make him liable to refund 10 his salary for the period in question. In that view of the matter, if the impugned order was passed after 12-13 years and in terms of the said order, the petitioner was subjected to recovery of Rs. 1,49,172/-, its correctness could be questioned only on the ground as to whether the petitioner was paid salary for the period he had undergone Ph.D. program and had left the same in the midstream or not? There is however no denial of the fact that the petitioner had received payment of salary from the University in the period of his study at I.I.T., Kharagpur and therefore, the authorities were quite justified in making recovery of such amount from the petitioner when he did not complete the course and infact absconded from I.I.T. The order is very clear and it only says that the recovery is confined to the amount paid to the petitioner and therefore, the plea that the petitioner was also subjected to certain damages does not seem to be justified. Once this aspect becomes clear, the plea of violation of principle of natural justice must fail, inasmuch as, the petitioner was subjected to a show-cause 11 notice and his opinion was solicited and thereafter, the respondents have passed the order for making recovery of the amount which was admittedly wasted by the University by believing the words of the petitioner that he wanted to pursue his career towards the Ph.D. program in I.I.T., Kharagpur by which the University could have been benefited. Nothing in this world comes free nor by way of gratis. An employee of Government or University, if he gets certain benefit for a particular purpose and if he does not fulfil the standards or requirement thereof, he must be saddled with the penal consequence of recovery of salary of such amount. If any other view will be taken in such matter, specially in the field of academic, it will lead to a complete anarchy, inasmuch as,give encouragement to dishonest and insincere persons like the petitioner, who would smartly first join the course and take full benefit of salary of the entire period of such course and thereafter would leave the course in midstream for getting themselves benefited else where only at the cost of the institution. The University had extended such benevolent benefits to the petitioner acting 12 as a model employer by providing him with additional incentive for enriching his academic pursuit and once the petitioner had misutilised the same, he was bound to at least refund the amount. As with regard to the plea of the petitioner now being taken that he had never executed a bond, has to be infact only noted for its being rejected. When the petitioner was confronted with the show-cause notice, he never took such a plea that he had never executed any bond. After 13-14 years his search for a document which is also not a classified document, like the bond not be required to be retained by the University for this long, further exposes his own dishonesty. The plea of the petitioner that since the university is not producing copy of the bond either in terms of Right to Information Act or otherwise has to be only appreciated in the background that the documents in these 14-15 years could not have been made to disappear except at the behest of the petitioner who alone could become beneficiary by such disappearance of the bond. In that view of the matter, this 13 Court, exercising its discretionary jurisdiction, would not like to allow the petitioner to reap benefit of his own misdeeds and permit him to capitalize on his own wrong doing specially when the execution of the bond by him had been fully admitted in his show-cause reply dated 12.5.1993. That being so, this Court would not find any merit in this writ application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)