IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1364 of 2010 SHAMBHU SARAN PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02 27.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. C.W.J.C. No. 15370 of 2004 was filed by another in which this Court gave directions for payment of subsistence allowance for the period of suspension and directed the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Headquarters to hold an enquiry fixing responsibility on the delinquent, who did not ensure payment of subsistence allowance and effect recovery of interest, so awarded on the subsistence allowance from the salary of the delinquent as also to initiate departmental proceedings against the delinquent concerned. In consequence thereof the petitioner has been visited with the impugned order dated 1.7.2009 effecting recovery of the interest amount of Rs. 43,759/- from his retiral dues. Learned counsel for the petitioner raises an objection that before fixing responsibility on the petitioner he was not afforded an opportunity to defend himself after being furnished the grounds on which responsibility was sought to be fixed upon him. This 2 Court had never directed ex parte fixation of responsibility. Initiation of departmental proceedings after fixation of responsibility and directing recovery was contrary to law. Counter affidavit has been filed affirmed by an Officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. It does not make any statement that the petitioner was furnished the grounds on which responsibility was sought to be fixed on him for non-payment of subsistence allowance and recovery of interest effected with an opportunity to defend himself. Let alone furnishing of grounds, the petitioner was not even intimated that recovery was proposed to be effected from him under any order of this Court by fixation of responsibility. Any order having civil consequences have to comply the principles of natural justice. This applies with equal force to Courts orders and to Court proceedings, which are no exception. The principles of audi alteram partem are age old and are not a recent enunciation of the 21st century. Notwithstanding the same, the Government functionaries, despite availability of adequate resources for legal advice insist on passing orders contrary to basic canons of law. Perhaps, this may also be done with a purpose so that this Court shall proceed to quash it immediately, when the authorities 3 achieve a dual purpose of purported compliance of Court orders sanguine that their act was illegal which the court shall quash immediately. It is unfortunate that a senior officer of the rank of D.I.G. has chosen to act contrary to law. Perhaps, that may be a matter for investigation itself as why Government authorities insist on passing orders contrary to the basic canons of law generating unwanted litigation. Learned counsel for the State submits that departmental proceedings are pending against the petitioner. He is however unable to inform the Court if the recovery aspect was one of the charges or not. If, it was a charge in the departmental proceeding, the question of recovery before completion of the departmental proceedings simply does not arise. If, it is not a part of the charge, the question of fixation of responsibility on the petitioner ex-parte as discussed above simply does not arise. The order dated 1.7.2009 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority to examine if recovery of interest is a part of the charges in the departmental proceedings. If it is not, the charges may be amended and fresh opportunity be given to the petitioner. If, it was a charge in the departmental proceeding needless to add that the authorities shall be 4 at liberty to pass fresh appropriate orders in accordance with law on conclusion of the departmental proceedings. The writ application stands disposed to be complied with within two months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)