ORDER : 1. The petitioner held the post of Associate Professor-cum-Head of Department, Political Science, M.V. College, Buxar on substantive basis. The said college is a constituent unit of Veer Kunwar Singh University, Arrah. Vide letter No. 2862 dated 14.09.2010, he was appointed as the Chairman, Bhojpuri Academy, Bihar, Arrah. After his appointment as Chairman of Academy by virtue of the said letter, he assumed the charge of the post. 2. The bye-laws of the Bhojpuri Academy provide for payment of honorarium to a person holding the post of Chairman of the Academy. After assuming the charge of Chairman of the Academy, a meeting of Executive Committee of the Academy was held on 23.10.2010 which was headed by the petitioner, in presence of other members to take a decision as regards payment of honorarium as the Chairman of the Academy. It was decided in the said meeting to pay a sum of rupees four thousand per month to the Chairman of the Academy as honorarium till final decision of the State Government in this regard. It is the case of the petitioner that till that date there was no decision of the State Government fixing honorarium payable to the Chairman of the Academy. 3. Thereafter, the State Government vide letter dated 10.10.2011 decided to pay a sum of rupees fifteen thousand per month as honorarium to the Chairman of various academies including the Bhojpuri Academy. It seems that the petitioner received his full salary as Associate Professor of the college where he held the post on substantive basis and at the same time received honorarium in his capacity as Chairman of Bhojpuri Academy. This is to be noted that the petitioner was appointed for three years as Chairman of the Academy by the notification dated 27.08.2010, issued by the Government of Bihar, which term he completed in August, 2013 and the term has not been extended. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved, in the present writ application by a letter dated 22.08.2013 issued by the Education Department, Government of Bihar, addressed to the Director, Bhojpuri Academy, Patna to the effect that the petitioner was not entitled to receive honorarium in his capacity as Chairman of the Bhojpuri Academy since he had been receiving full salary and allowances of Associate Professor-cum-Head of the Department, M.V. College, Buxar. The Government took the view that the petitioner had been receiving salary on the basis of fund made available to the University by the State Government. By the said letter dated 22.08.2013, the Government asked the Director, Bhojpuri Academy to ensure recovery of amount received by the petitioner against honorarium in his capacity as Chairman of the Academy. 5. The petitioner has challenged the consequent letter dated 24.08.2013 issued by the Director, Bhojpuri Academy addressed to the petitioner whereby he has been asked to refund a total amount of Rs. 3, 02, 645/- received by him as honorarium from the Academy, to the Academy. 6. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner while challenging the impugned order has mainly submitted that such decision to make recovery is bad in view of consistent decisions of this Court as well as Apex Court that unless and until there is element of misrepresentation or fraud while receiving the money, no recovery can be ordered. The second limb of his submission is that honorarium is not salary and it is paid only to meet the expenses which are incurred by incumbent to the post of Chairman of Bhojpuri Academy. He submits that there was no illegality if the petitioner received honorarium in his capacity as Chairman of Bihar Bhojpuri Academy while receiving salary from the University as Associate Professor and the Head of the Post Graduate Department of the concerned College. He has further submitted that as a matter of fact the petitioner had sought permission from the University upon his appointment as Chairman of Bhojpuri Academy by the State Government and the University took a conscious decision to grant him permission to function as Chairman of the Bhojpuri Academy with the stipulation that the University would be paying salary during the said period as the post of Chairman of Bhojpuri Academy was honorary. He has submitted that it is wrong for the State Government have directed the petitioner to refund the money received by him as honorarium as part of the said amount he has already paid against his income tax liability and he had to spend sufficient amount for meeting the expenditure of the office of the Bhojpuri Academy. He accordingly submits that the decision to recover the said amount in the facts and circumstances of the case is illegal. 7. He accordingly submits that the decision to recover the said amount in the facts and circumstances of the case is illegal. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in any view of the matter, payment of honorarium to the petitioner as Chairman of the Bhojpuri Academy, Patna, cannot be said to be by way of any act of misrepresentation or fraud committed by the petitioner and he accordingly submits, relying upon various pronouncements of this Court as well as Apex Court that recovery in such circumstance is not permissible. This is not in dispute that the petitioner, during the period he functioned as Chairman of Bhojpuri Academy received salary from the University payable to an Associate Professor. This is also an admitted position that he had not discharged any duty as Associate Professor and Head of Department of Political Science in M.V. College, Buxar which post he was substantively holding before taking over charge as Chairman, Bhojpuri Academy. A plea has been taken that the amount which the petitioner received as honorarium cannot be treated to be salary or income as said amount the petitioner received to meet the office expenses and other expenses of Bhojpuri Academy. This plea, in my opinion, is contrary to the plea taken by the petitioner that he had paid income tax on such amount and, therefore, he could not be compelled to pay the entire amount. The very contention that the petitioner paid income tax on the said amount of honorarium he received, implies that, that amount was treated to be income by petitioner himself. Had that been used for the purpose of meeting the expenses of office, there would have been no question of paying income tax on such amount. 8. The petitioner held a very important position of Chairman of Bhojpuri Academy. The plea that he received the amount of honorarium without any misrepresentation or fraud does not befit his status. He would not be entitled to receive salary from one source without discharging any duty and honorarium from the other. Such plea is against the principles of equity. This Court restrains from commenting upon the decision of the University to pay to the petitioner the entire salary which he would have been entitled to as Associate Professor of the College, while functioning as the Chairman of Bhojpuri Academy without discharging his duties of Associate Professor. 9. Such plea is against the principles of equity. This Court restrains from commenting upon the decision of the University to pay to the petitioner the entire salary which he would have been entitled to as Associate Professor of the College, while functioning as the Chairman of Bhojpuri Academy without discharging his duties of Associate Professor. 9. I am of the considered view that petitioner should not have received the honorarium in his capacity as Chairman of Bhojpuri Academy while receiving full salary as Associate Professor of the College which is a constituent unit of Veer Kunwar Singh University, substantially funded by the State Government. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order for making recovery has been passed without affording to the petitioner any prior opportunity of being heard. He has submitted that under the proviso to Section 68(2) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, it was well within the jurisdiction of the University to have allowed the petitioner, leave with salary on his appointment as Chairman of Bhojpuri Academy which is an honorary post. As regards the petitioner’s submission of his entitlement of salary from the University, I have already refrained from making any observation as noted above. So far as issuance of show-cause is concerned, I have considered the submissions in detail made on behalf of the petitioner with respect to his entitlement to get honorarium and at the same time receiving salary from the University, I do not think any purpose would be served at this stage by remanding the matter back to the authorities for the purpose of compliance of the principles of natural justice. 11. I do not find any merit in this application. This application is accordingly dismissed.