IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10733 of 2006 JALENDRA SINGH, son of Shri Yugeshwar Singh, resident of village – Sikaria, P S – Paliganj, Dist. Patna, at present posted as Junior Engineer, Road Section, Garu-III, Road Sub-division, Garu at Barwadih, District-Palamu at Daltenganj. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Addl. Commissioner cum Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Circle, Purnea. 3. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Kishanganj. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate. For the State : M/S. A Amanullah, GA 9, Mr. M K Pathak & A K Prasad, AC to GA-9 ------ 04. 8.9.2010 Petitioner was an employee of the erstwhile State of Bihar. After the bifurcation of the State he has been allocated Jharkhand cadre and is now serving the State of Jharkhand. The reason for his coming before this Court is a so-called endorsement made in the last pay slip, which shows an outstanding dues against the petitioner to the tune of Rs.11,44,266.25. This is the amount worked out for non-accounting of 58.543 metric tons of bitumen as well as non-reconciliation of Rs.41,802.07 the advance taken by him. Earlier petitioner had approached this High Court when a liability was saddled upon him and an order for deducting a sum of Rs.3000 per month from his salary came to be issued by the respondents. Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the claim, the Court gave a direction to the respondents to issue show cause to the petitioner and based on the show cause an appropriate order was to be passed. The earlier order is Annexure-2 to the present writ application. 2 Thereafter, it seems that matter has dragged on for many a years and the new cause of action, according to the petitioner, is the outstanding dues, which is coming in the way of the petitioner drawing his salary at the newly posted place. The stand of the State in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner tried to avoid physical verification of the stock of bitumen for many a years. His answer to the show cause given to him was evasive and when final verification came to be made, a shortage was found. It is not a case in which any kind of departmental enquiry is required to be held since it is a pure case of accounting. With the materials on record this Court finds itself unable to adjudicate and decide the liability of the petitioner because it is actually a case of physical verification and accounting for which the petitioner and respondents are best disposed in this regard. Article 226 is not the answer for such a dispute. The writ application is dismissed. The petitioner may explore other avenues, including departmental for settlement of the dispute. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)