Parshuram Tiwary vs State of Bihar and Others

Narayan Roy, J.—Heard counsel for the parties.

Basically a grievance has been made against the order, as contained in Annexure 4, whereby and whereunder the respondent authorities have proceeded to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner on account of promotion given to him.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not a case, where several times promotions were given to the petitioner and, thus, he is entitled for first time bound promotion on the post of Sub-Inspector of Excise. It is also submitted that the authorities have proceeded to recover the excess amount from the petitioner without affording an opportunity of hearing to him and thus, the order impugned must be held to be violative of the principles of Natural Justice.

It appears from Annexure 4 that directions were issued to recover the excess amount from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. However, it is not discernible from Annexure 4 as to whether any prior notice was given to the petitioner of hearing.

Though a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, nowhere it is stated that any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner prior to issuance of the order of recovery, as contained in Annexure 4.

In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the order, as contained in Annexure 4, is held to be violative of the principles of Natural Justice and on this account alone, this application succeeds.

In the result, this application is allowed and the order impugned, as contained in Annexure 4, whereby and whereunder the authorities have proceeded to recover the excess amount from the petitioner is set aside. The authorities may, however, proceed in the matter in accordance with law.