SURENDRA PRASAD YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.1.2011. It directs recovery of a sum of Rs. 59,592.26 on account of the Circle Office, Saurbazar, and a sum of Rs. 18,600/- outstanding with interest @ 12%.

(2.) It is submitted that in a departmental proceeding the Enquiry Officer on 31.1.1997 opined for a fresh measurement before accounting and fixation of liability. The petitioner came to this Court in CWJC No. 1015 of 2001. Directions were given to take a final decision. Orders of punishment were passed on 7.6.2011 including for recovery of the amount in question. The petitioner preferred Appeal No. 16 of 2005 before the Commissioner. On 30.10.2006 the Commissioner set aside the order of punishment dated 7.6.2001 and remanded the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The District Magistrate has passed the fresh impugned order which is not reasoned and discussed but simply reiterates the earlier order of punishment dated 7.6.2001 holding that it requires no interference.

(3.) It is submitted that once the order dated 7.6.2001 was set aside and the matter remanded to the Commissioner, the order no more survived. It was non-existent for all purpose. The District Magistrate could not have looked into that non-existent order. He was required to pass fresh reasoned and speaking order. Reliance is placed on Narinder Singh vs. Surjit Singh, 1984 AIR(SC) 1359 observing at paragraph 2 as follows:-