IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.13136 of 2010
MD.NAZIM HUSSAIN s/o late Sakhawat Ali @ Sakhawat Ali,
resident of Mohalla- Dharampur (Greenland School),Town, P.S. and
District- Samastipur.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary,
Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development
Department,(Higher Education), Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director (Higher Education), Department of human Resources
Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga
through its Registrar.
5. The Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila Universality,
Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga.
6. The Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila Universality, Kameshwar
Nagar, Darbhanga.
7. The Finance Officer, Lalit Narayan Mithila Universality,
Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga.
8. The Principal, Samastipur College, Samastipur.
-----------
2 27.8.2010 Petitioner challenges that part of Annexure 14 being
letter of Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, as
contained in memo no. 341 of 2010, dated 13.7.2010 by which
the Principal of Samastipur constituent College of the
University is informed ,inter alia, that the petitioner is liable to
refund Rs. 5,71,180/- paid to him in excess. Petitioner challenges
the same on the ground that the determination was made after
considering all the facts by the Pay Revision Committee and he
is given due benefits and promotion. Neither the State auditor
nor the University could come to such a finding on the facts on
issue and more so without prior notice to the petitioner and
adjudication in this regard.
2
Having heard learned counsel for the University and
the petitioner, in my view, the challenge is simple. How can a
person be made liable to refund such amount of money without
the person being heard. On this short issue itself that part of the
communication of the Registrar, which relates to recovery of
money from the petitioner, is set aside.
In case the Registrar of the University still is of the
opinion that any amount is due, he must issue a specific show
cause notice to the petitioner giving ground why such allegation
is being made. He would grant opportunity to the petitioner to
show cause against the said demand. Upon consideration of all
materials and without being prejudiced by the State audit’s ex
parte appraisal , the Registrar would decide the matter and pass a
speaking order. It is only thereafter any demand can be raised
against the petitioner. If petitioner is aggrieved by the said
determination he would have his remedy as provided in law.
Till such time, the matter is not so decided, the
petitioner would continue to receive his remuneration as he has
been receiving and there will be no demand palced against him.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the
writ petition is disposed of.
( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)
singh