NIRMAL CHANDRA MANDAL Vs. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner prays for quashing the direction issued from the office of the Accountant General, Bihar as contained in memo No. 1671 dated 30.7.93 (Annexure '1') by which Rs. 62,587.65p. has been sought to be recovered from the Petitioner being the excess amount drawn by him against his salaries pertaining to the period 5.3.84 to 31.7.92.

(2.) At the material time the Petitioner was working as a Headmaster in nationalised high school at Khairbani (Dumka). The reason for ordering the said recovery as disclosed in the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent-Accounts Officer is that the Petitioner has unauthorisedly drawn salary by availing increment, without passing Hindi noting and drafting examination which is contrary to the Bihar Government Servant (Hindi Examination) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter, in short, referred to as the 'Hindi Examination Rules' only). It has been placed on record that though the said Hindi Examination Rules had come into force from 15th June, 1968 but for the reasons disclosed in the Government Circular dated 25th January, 1989 issued by the Director, (Secondary Education), Bihar, the provisions of the Hindi Examination Rules have been made applicable in respect of the employees in secondary schools including Headmasters with effect from 9th June, 1983 which is the date from which the Nationalised Secondary Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983 has been enforced.

(3.) The Petitioner in his rejoinder has stated that the Circular (Annexure '2') has no bearing in his case because his pay, as is evident from Annexure, '2', had been verified and found to be correct by the District Education Officer, Dumka. Therefore, according to him it is not permissible on the par) of the Respondents now to take the stand that the Petitioner had withdrawn any excess amount by way of the salary and, therefore, the same should be recovered. It has further been stated that the impugned order of recovery has been passed without granting any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and, therefore, being violative of the principle of natural justice it should be struck down as inoperative. In support of the respective stand of the parties on facts and in law as disclosed in their respective pleadings we have heard the learned Counsels appearing for the Petitioner as also the Respondents, at length.