S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) AS both the writ petitions have been preferred by same petitioner, and are based on common facts, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) THE petitioner who was in the services of the State was proceeded and by an order No. 1670 - 73, dated 16th April, 1997 he was asked to refund the excess amount which he had drawn on account of wrong promotion. In spite of such order he having not refunded the amount for more than three years he was suspended vide an order No. 5158 -60, dated 25th May, 1997. In the first writ petition, W.P. (S) No. 2976 of 2003, the petitioner has challenged the order of suspension No. 5158 -60, dated 25th May, 1997. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the order of suspension was revoked and an Order No. 219, dated 20th March, 2002, followed by Memo No. 287, dated 26th March, 2003 were issued by which, giving reference to the earlier Order No. 1670 -73, dated 26th April, 1994, the respondents directed the petitioner to deposit the rest of the amount of Res. 53,332/ -. After nine years, the petitioner has preferred the second writ petition W.P. (S) No. 3050 of 2003, challenging the Memo No. 1670 -73, dated 6th April, 1994 as also Order No. 219, dated 20th March, 2002, and Order No. 287, dated 26th March, 2003. The brief fact of the case, as pleaded by the petitioner and not disputed by the respondents, is that the petitioner was appointed as a teacher, vide Memo No. 14296 -498, dated 13th September, 1971 in Primary School, Scamper, District -Duke. He joined the service on 20th September, 1971. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as I.A. Trained Teacher, but I.A. Trained scale and B.A. Trained scale i.e. 1.4.1982 were allowed later on. Thereafter, he had drawn the arrears in the I.A. and B.A. Trained scales of pay. In the year 1994, It came to the notice of the respondents that the petitioner was actually appointed in the Metric Trained scale of pay. The District Superintendent of Education, Duke, vide Memo No. 10901 -11000, dated 5th June, 1974, wrongly allowed him I.A. Trained scale of pay, treating him as a member of Scheduled Caste Category though he is not a Scheduled Caste. Again treating him as a member of Scheduled Caste Category, the District Superintendent of Education, Sahedganj, vide Memo No. 5258 -61, dated 18th June, 1983 wrongly allowed him the B.A. Trained scale of pay w.e.f. 1,4,1982. Such acts having come to the notice of the respondents and that the petitioner was actually not a Scheduled Caste, and he was wrongly granted LA, Trained scale of pay and B.A. Trained scale of pay against posts which were reserved for Scheduled Caste, and it also came to the notice of the respondents that the petitioner actually passed the B.A. examination on 30th September, 1982, but has been wrongly given the benefit of B.A. Trained scale w.e.f. 1.4.1982. The petitioner was noticed and, after going though his reply, the respondents issued impugned order No. 1670 -73 Godda, dated 16th April, 1994 and directed the petitioner to deposit the excess payment wrongly drawn by him, within ten days, In the Government Treasury, However, it was made clear that the petitioner will get the benefits of First Time Bound Promotion w.e.f. 20th September, 1981, i.e. on completion of ten years of service in terms with Finance Departments 'sResolution No. 10770, dated 31st December, 1981. Thereafter, the petitioner did not choose to challenge the order dated 16th April, 1994. By his letter dated 21st December, 1995 addressed to District Superintendent of Education, Godda, the petitioner took the only plea that there was no mistake on his part. It was further pleaded by him that the persons junior to him, including one Girish Chandra Jha, had been allowed I.A. Trained scale of pay w.e.f. 23rd September, 1976. Thereafter, the respondents issued Memo No. 9727 -31, dated 22nd July, 1996 and asked the petitioner to deposit at least 1/3rd of the total amount of Rs. 88,451,40 paise in the Treasury as first instalment. In spite of the order dated 16th April, 1994, followed by order dated 22nd July, 1996, the petitioner did not deposit any amount so he was placed under suspension vide Memo No. 5158, dated 28th May, 1997. A proceeding was initiated for alleged drawal of excess amount of Rs. 88,451,40 paise. The Area Education Officer, Mahagama was appointed as an Enquiry Officer and petitioner was asked to submit reply.
(3.) THE writ petitions were heard on merit but no ground was shown to assail the order of suspension. I also find no ground made out to interfere with the order of suspension dated 28th May, 1997. This apart, the order of suspension having been revoked vide Memo No. 309, dated 30th March, 2003, no further order is required to be passed.;