IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.685 of 2011 (Arising out of C.W.J.C. 12013 of 2009) 1. The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar. 2. Additional Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar. 3. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Dehari. 4. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Muzaffarpur. 5. Executive Engineer, Trihut Canal Division-I, Muzaffarpur…………………………..Respondents……Appellant. Versus 1. Girja Nand Thakur son of late Bachchu Narayan Thakur, resident of village Mani, P.S.-Sarari, District-Vaishali at present resident of Ananiya House, Bangali Colony, Ganipur, P.O.-Ramana, District- Muzaffarpur…………………………….Writ petitioner/Respondent 2. Accountant General Bihar……………… Performa Respondent ----------- 4. 16.8.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the order dated 23.9.2010 whereby the Writ Court has allowed C.W.J.C. No. 12013 of 2009 preferred by respondent No. 1, Mr. Girja Nand Thakur from whom the government proposed to recover Rs. 4.68 lakhs in view of shortage of stock detected by the audit in the year 1992-93 relating to the period 1979-82 when Mr. Thakur was posted as Junior Engineer, Trihut Canal Division-I, Muzaffarpur. Since the audit report disclosed shortage, a decision dated 31.12.1998 was taken for recovery of the said amount from respondent No. 1 by the then Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Muzaffarpur. The order for recovery was however quashed by this Court in a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 9934 of 2000. That order of the Court dated 22.6.2001 contained in Annexure 2-B pointed out the shortcoming in the action of the authorities that they had not framed charge-sheet or charges and had not given opportunity to explain the charges hence their action suffered from violation of natural justice. No doubt, earlier the authorities had 2 asked the respondent No. 1 to explain the audit report or shortage report but the Court did not consider that to be sufficient and hence, the order for recovery was quashed with liberty that the authority may proceed in accordance with law and pass fresh order. The order under appeal passed by the Writ Court and the facts available on records show that the impugned order dated 12.11.2008 (Annexure-1 to the memo of Appeal) suffers from the same legal lacuna. There is no explanation why the Junior Engineer, Water Resources Department, Muzaffarpur even after noticing the order of this Court dated 26.2.2001 did not communicate any charges or charge-sheet to the respondent No. 1 and did not seek explanation on such charges. This has led to quashing of the order dated 12.11.2008. The Writ Court has denied permission to the State to proceed further against respondent No. 1 on the ground that the matter is very old and the respondent has already superannuated from service with effect from 31.7.2008. Ordinarily liberty is granted to the authorities to proceed afresh if the earlier decision suffers from procedural vice in violation of principles of natural justice. However, considering that earlier an opportunity was granted to the appellants to proceed against respondent No. 1 in accordance with law but they did not avail of opportunity and the fact that the alleged shortage was of the period 1997-82 for which audit report was made in the year 1992-93 and that the respondent No. 1 has superannuated from service in 2008, we are also not persuaded to grant further liberty to the appellants. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Why the appellant No. 4, the Chief Engineer, Water 3 Resources Department, Muzaffarpur chose not to frame charges and seek explanation in spite of clear observation in the order of this Court dated 22.6.2001 is intriguing to say the least, hence we are constrained to observe that if the State of Bihar, or the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar is of the view that Rs. 4.68 Lakhs could not be recovered due to procedural lapses of the authorities concerned, it would be at liberty to seek explanation from them and in the light of such explanation may decide to recover the amount from those officers who defaulted to act in accordance with law which has created the present situation. A copy of this order be communicated to the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar for the needful. Since we have found no merit in this appeal, it would serve no useful purpose to issue notice for considering the limitation petition only. The appeal is dismissed with the observations made earlier. Mkc/ (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)