IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8151 of 2005 ARBIND KUMAR SON OF LATE NATH PRASAD SINGH RESIDENT OF BAKHTIYARPUR, PS. BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTRICT PATNA. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 27/08/2010 Order dated 25.04.2005 communicated to the petitioner by the Superintendent Excise, Saran has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ application. Petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2135/- with the treasury. The amount is stated to be wrongly paid to the petitioner despite award of punishment of stoppage of two increments but without cumulative effect. Letter contained in annexure-1 has come to be issued based on the audit objection raised by the Accountant General contained in Audit Objection No. 287/01-02. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that both annexure-1 and the audit objection seem to be misplaced because withholding of two increments without cumulative effect has been turned into one with - 2 - cumulative effect, if the audit objection raised is accepted to be correct. No doubt, petitioner lost benefit of two increments but that increment will have to be restored after expiry of the period of two years. That is what was done by the respondent State authorities and the petitioner was paid his salary on that basis but by misunderstanding the order of punishment, an audit objection was raised that extra money was received by the petitioner and, thus, the petitioner was directed to deposit the excess money received by him in view of his punishment. Stand of the State is in support the petitioner. They do not deny that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was withholding of two increments without cumulative effect. Net effect of such punishment is that the petitioner lost award of two increments for two years but it was restored after expiry of two years. That is what had been done but since the audit objection was there, they had to comply with the same. In view of the above stated circumstance, the claim made on the petitioner for refund of the money in terms of annexure-1 seems to be misplaced. - 3 - This writ application is allowed and annexure-1 is hereby quashed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)