ABDUL HAFEEZ Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for the following reliefs:

(3.) Mr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Shanti Pratap, Advocate on record in this case, has submitted that if the petitioner had already been subjected to verification of his pay fixation by the Auditors of the office of the State Government in the year 1992 and also was made to refund Rs. 13,262/- as also is entered in his service book, he could not have been again held to be liable to refund a sum of Rs. 1,49,325/-. In this regard it has been submitted that the order, contained in Annexure-1, the subsequent audit objection of the office of the Accountant General pointing out excess amount drawn to the tune of Rs. 90,200/- is based on no calculation and no reasons and at least does not take into account the earlier deductions already made from the petitioner in the year 1994 pursuant to the audit objection of the year 1992 making the petitioner not only looser in the matter of grant of his pay but also refund of Rs. 13,262/-.