Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 397 (PAT)

Hulas Sao v. State Of Bihar

2004-04-07

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body2004
Judgment 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, who retired as a Peon from, Bedauli High School, Imamganj, District Patna, is aggrieved by the order, contained in Annexure 4, whereby recovery of alleged excess payment made to him on account of wrong fixation of salary has been sought to be made. The said order has been issued by the District Education Officer, Patna after fixation of pay by the District Accounts Officer. The District Education Officer also accorded sanction for payment of pension/gratuity after recovery of alleged excess amount and sent it to the Accountant General on 27.3.2004 vide Annexure A to the counter affidavit filed on his behalf. 2. In the said counter affidavit it is stated that as per direction of the District Accounts Officer Annexure 4 was issued to the Headmaster as well as to the Accountant General, Bihar to recover the excess withdrawn amount from the petitioner and to fix the pension accordingly. Learned counsel for the State has not been able to show that there is any such direction of the District Accounts Officer. 3. It may be true that the District Accounts Officer in course of fixation of pay fixed the pay of the petitioner at a reduced rate but there is no direction given by him for recovery obviously in view of law settled that no such recovery from the retiral dues is permissible until it is found that the alleged excess amount has been drawn by representation, misrepresentation or fraud committed by the Govt, servant. The District Education Officer has attempted to mislead this Court by throwing the responsibility over the District Accounts Officer. This Court, thus, finds the action of the District Education Officer arbitrary, malafide and vindictive so much so he has not even bothered to follow the settled principle with respect to recovery. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed with cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid by the District Education Officer (respondent no. 2) from his pocket to the petitioner. 5. It appears from the counter affidavit of respondent no. 2 filed today that the sanction order has been sent to the Accountant General on 27.3.2004 vide Annexure A. Accordingly, Mr. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed with cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid by the District Education Officer (respondent no. 2) from his pocket to the petitioner. 5. It appears from the counter affidavit of respondent no. 2 filed today that the sanction order has been sent to the Accountant General on 27.3.2004 vide Annexure A. Accordingly, Mr. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the Accountant General, assures that the authority shall be issued without making any recovery and a copy thereof shall be handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner within a week. The amount of cost must be paid by respondent no. 2 within a week.