SURENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-9 dated 19.12.2007 which order has been passed by the Additional Director General, Vigilance Department in compliance with the order of the High Court passed in CWJC No. 6401 of 2005.

(2.) By the impugned order, the Department ordered for recovery of a sum of Rs. 58,547/- paid to the petitioner in lieu of the promotion granted to him by the Vigilance Department. Paragraph 4 of the order impugned indicates that due to the mistake of the Office, the petitioner was granted promotion without passing the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination and thereafter got the salary of the higher post from 1995 to 2003. The petitioner in this context also filed a show cause indicating that he was not aware of the fact that he was to pass the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination before he could be granted promotion to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in the Vigilance Department. On the basis if the show cause filed on behalf of the petitioner, the Additional Director General, Vigilance came to the conclusion that it was the duty of the petitioner to know that he was required to pass the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination before being granted promotion.

(3.) The reasoning given by the Additional Director General, Vigilance is not acceptable to this Court on the ground that once it is accepted that the promotion was granted by mistake by the Department concerned, the blame cannot be laid solely on the shoulders of the petitioner. Both the parties i.e. the Department and the petitioner made a mistake in the matter. Since the mistake was not motivated by misrepresentation by the petitioner, I accordingly quash the order contained in Annexure-3 dated 25.08.2003 and the subsequential order as contained in Annexure-9 dated 19.12.2007, by which the petitioner was asked to repay the amount paid to him in lieu of the promotion granted to him on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Vigilance.