IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5392 of 2010 1. MAHENDRA PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE HARIHAR PRASAD R/O VILL. AND P.O.- PURANIGANJ, P.S.- KASHIM BAZAR, DISTT.- MUNGER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (MECHANICAL), SOUTH BIHAR DIVISION, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, JAMUI, DISTT.- JAMUI 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, LAKHISARAI, DISTT.- LAKHISARAI 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, JAMUI, DISTT.- JAMUI 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPTT., LAKHISARAI ----------- 2. 26.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 27.3.2009 and 1.4.2009, alleging that it wrongly directs recovery of amounts mentioned therein from his retiral dues. There have been no proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules prior to directing such recovery. In a departmental proceeding before superannuation on 30.9.2007 by an enquiry report dated 9.11.2004, he has been exonerated. He was never served with any second show cause notice for difference of opinion with the enquiry report. 2 Counsel for the State points out that the enquiry report dated 9.11.2004 contains two charges. The first relates to non-handing over of charge and thus disobeying Government instructions violating the Government Servant Conduct Rules and the second charge is connected to the same. The charges do not appear to be related to any alleged embezzlement or defalcation of Bitumen which is the subject matter of the orders dated 27.3.2009 and 1.4.2009. He next submits that in any event, the orders impugned are not final orders of recovery but only the expression of opinion based on certain objections raised by the Accountant General. He very fairly acknowledged that the petitioner having superannuated, any recovery from him even in pursuance of the observation/opinion in the impugned orders can only be done in accordance with law. Prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that the subject matter of the impugned orders does not appear to relate to the enquiry report on which the petitioner relies. In any event, it been submitted on behalf of the State that the impugned orders are only the expression of an opinion which, if satisfied is required to be acted upon further in accordance 3 with law only. There is no occasion for the Court to interfere with any expression of opinion which is not a final order and issues are yet to attain finally, in accordance with law. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)