IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2226 of 2009 PROF.RATHINDRA KUMAR DUTTA, RETIRED LECTURER OF PHYSICS, R.K. COLLEGE, MADHUBANI, MAHILA COLLEGE, ROAD, MADHUBANI, SON OF LATE ANIL KUMAR DUTTA, WARD NO.8, MADHUBANI. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, SRI MISHRI LAL THAKUR, L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY, DARBHANGA. 3. THE REGISTRAR, SRI BIMAL KUMAR, L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY, DARBHANGA. 4. THE FINANCE OFIFCER, SRI BIJAY KUMAR SINGH, L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY, DARBHANGA. ----------- 05. 19.05.2010 In compliance of my order dated 12.5.2010 the Registrar, and the head of the audit team posted in the L.N.M. University, Darbhanga(hereinafter referred to as the University) are present. It is agreed by them that in order to expedite the receipt and disposal of the audit and verification work in the University it is necessary that auditors deputed in the University be subjected to the administrative control of the Vice Chancellor and their salary during the period of deputation be released on receipt of the absentee statement from the Vice-Chancellor of the University. Such arrangement has already been made by this Court in the case of Magadh University as would appear from order dated 12.5.2010 passed in M.J.C. No.3346 of 2009. 2. It is submitted by the head of the audit team with reference to his show cause dated 18.5.2010 that the verification of the record in the case of the petitioner has already been made under report dated 18.5.2010, Annexure-A to the show cause, wherefrom it will appear that petitioner has been paid Rs.1,06,898/- in excess of his retiral dues. 3. Counsel for the petitioner disputes the report of the 2 Auditor on the basis of letter dated 18.5.2010 of the Registrar of the University addressed to the lawyer of the University as thereunder the amount required to be recovered from the petitioner is Rs.78,417/- and not the amount of Rs.1,06,898/- as has been found by the Auditor. 4. Having heard counsel for the petitioner, University and the head of the audit team, I direct the Vice-Chancellor of the University to pass reasoned order indicating the amount, which is to be recovered from the petitioner but before passing such order it is also directed that petitioner should appear before the Vice-Chancellor of the University on 8.6.2010 and after considering his submission Vice-Chancellor should pass orders. 5. With the direction aforesaid, this contempt application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University if he is not satisfied therewith. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.) -