PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. - (1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing the order dated 16.08.2013 issued by the District Education Officer, Giridih whereby a sum of Rs.9,91,996/ - has been ordered to be recovered and thus respondents authorities have recovered Rs.50,000/ from the salary of the petitioner from the month of April, 2013 till January, 2014 and Rs.3,50,000/ - from gratuity; Rs.3,00,000/ - from unused Earned and Rs.2,91,996/ - from the amount of General Provident Fund and the petitioner has further prayed for refund of Rs.50,000/ - already recovered from the salary from April, 2013 to January, 2014 along with interest.
(2.) The facts, as disclosed in the writ application, in nutshell, is that the petitioner joined as Assistant Teacher on 01.01.1982 and superannuated on 31.01.2014 after serving for more than 32 years of service. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.08.2013, the petitioner having no alternative and efficacious remedy, approached before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India invoking extraordinary jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that impugned orders have been passed for recovery of the excess payment without initiation of any departmental inquiry and the impugned order is violative and contrary to law laid down in the case of Kusheshwar Nath Pandey vs. State of Bihar & Ors.(2013) 12 SCC 580 ; State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava (2013 [3] JLJR 537 {SC} ) and Most. Sumitra Devi vs. State of Jharkhand (2008 [1] JLJR 486 {FB}).;