Patna High Court
BiharversusAmol Naryan Choudhary
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The recovery order dated 21‑12‑2018 was unsustainable as it lacked statutory authority, and the intra‑court appeal is dismissed.
Summary
The State of Bihar appealed against a judgment that quashed a recovery order directing a retired employee, Amol Narayan Choudhary, to repay Rs 37,566.94 with interest. The recovery stemmed from alleged misappropriation of Rs 8,25,212.94 detected in block records, later reduced by a four‑member committee. The single judge held that the District Magistrate’s order lacked any statutory basis to recover from a retired employee and was therefore unsustainable. The State argued that the earlier High Court order in CWJC 12899/2015 permitted the authorities to proceed and that natural‑justice requirements were met. The Patna High Court affirmed the single judge’s reasoning, finding no legal authority for post‑retirement recovery and dismissed the intra‑court appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the District Magistrate’s recovery order dated 21‑12‑2018 was supported by any statutory provision permitting recovery from a retired government employee.
- Whether the principles of natural justice were complied with in the recovery proceedings.
- Whether the intra‑court appeal is maintainable in view of the findings of the learned Single Judge.
Subjects
- post‑retirement recovery
- misappropriation of public funds
- administrative authority
- natural justice
- jurisdiction
- intra‑court appeal
- quashing of order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.169 of 2021
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11631 of 2019
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa.
3. The District Magistrate, Madhepura.
4. The Block Development Officer, Shankarpur, Madhepura.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Amol Naryan Choudhary S/o Late Dasarath Choudhary R/o Village- Behahi,
P.S.- Bihariganj, District- Madhepura.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Nadim Seraj, GP-5
Mr. Shailesh Kumar, AC to GP-5
For the Respondent/s :
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
4 26-02-2026 Re: I.A. No. 01 of 2021
Learned counsel for the appellants presses I.A. No. 01
of 2021 for condoning the delay of 1 year and 133 days in
preferring this appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay
in preferring this appeal is condoned.
3. I.A. No. 01 of 2021 stands allowed.
Re: LPA No. 169 of 2021
4. The present intra court appeal has been preferred
Patna High Court L.P.A No.169 of 2021(4) dt.26-02-2026
2/7
against the judgment and order dated 05.09.2019 (as modified
on 20.09.2019) passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC
No. 11631 of 2019, whereby Memo No. 953-2/Est. dated
21.12.2018 issued by the District Magistrate, Madhepura
directing recovery of Rs. 37,566.94 along with 12% interest
from the writ petitioner (now respondent herein) was quashed.
5. The brief facts of the present case are that the sole
respondent, Amol Narayan Choudhary, was posted as Upper
Division Clerk and had also functioned as Nazir at Shankarpur
Block in the district of Madhepura between 24.08.1996 and
24.06.1998. He retired from service on 31.07.2009 from Block
Office, Bihariganj. Subsequently, on the basis of irregularities
detected in the Nazarat records of Shankarpur Block, the Block
Development Officer, Shankarpur reported misappropriation of
government funds to the tune of Rs. 8,25,212.94. Initially, by
order dated 08.04.2015, recovery of the said amount was
directed. The respondent challenged the same in CWJC No.
12899 of 2015, which was allowed on 14.12.2015, leaving it
open to the authorities to proceed in accordance with law.
Thereafter, a Four-Member Committee was constituted on
29.10.2016 to inspect and verify the records. The Committee
submitted its report, reducing the alleged recoverable amount to
Patna High Court L.P.A No.169 of 2021(4) dt.26-02-2026
3/7
Rs. 37,566.94. Based on the said report, Memo No. 953-2/Est.
dated 21.12.2018 was issued directing recovery of Rs.
37,566.94 along with 12% interest, totaling Rs. 2,89,509.20.
The respondent again challenged the recovery order by filing
CWJC No. 11631 of 2019, and the learned Single Judge
quashed the recovery order primarily on the ground that there
was no legal authority to recover the amount from a retired
employee.
6. The learned Writ Court, after hearing the parties,
passed the following orders:
“Amount is irrelevant. The Court’s
concern is only whether action was permissible as
per law or preceded by any opportunity to the
petitioner. Apparently there is nothing on record to
sustain the action of the District Magistrate,
Madhepura on the basis of any provision in law
providing for such an order of recovery, post
retirement of a government employee without
affording any opportunity. Order of the District
Magistrate, Madhepura, therefore is clearly
unsustainable.
State counsel submits that authorities
should be given liberty to proceed as per law. The
order dated 14.12.2015 passed in C.W.J.C. No.
12899 of 2015 already grants such an opportunity to
the State authorities.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances
order of the District Magistrate dated 21.12.2018 is
hereby quashed. The petitioner would be entitled to
Patna High Court L.P.A No.169 of 2021(4) dt.26-02-2026
4/7
all consequential benefits on account of quashing of
the order dated 21.12.2018.
In the circumstances, it goes without
saying that the consequential order issued by the
Establishment Section dated 20.08.2019 (Annexure-
A) would not be enforceable against the petitioner.
The instant writ petition stands
allowed.”
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
recovery order dated 21.12.2018 was passed strictly in
compliance with the liberty granted by the High Court in its
earlier order dated 14.12.2015 in CWJC No. 12899 of 2015,
wherein the authorities were permitted to proceed in accordance
with law. Pursuant thereto, a duly constituted Four-Member
Committee conducted inspection and verification of records and
quantified the actual amount recoverable, which stood
substantially reduced.
8. It is further submitted that the recovery proceedings
were initiated only after receipt of the Committee’s report and
after issuance of notice to the respondent, thereby adhering to
the principles of natural justice as directed earlier by the Court.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits
that the competent authority is empowered to recover
misappropriated public funds even after retirement of the
delinquent employee, particularly where such loss has been
Patna High Court L.P.A No.169 of 2021(4) dt.26-02-2026
5/7
caused to the State exchequer due to acts of misrepresentation
and embezzlement. It is further submitted that the learned
Single Judge erred in holding that there was no legal basis for
recovery from a retired employee, without considering that
public money allegedly embezzled cannot be permitted to be
retained merely on account of superannuation.
10. The limited issue for consideration before this
Court is that whether the judgment and order dated 05.09.2019
(as modified on 20.09.2019) passed in CWJC No. 11631 of
2019 suffers from any legal infirmity warranting interference by
this Court in exercise of its intra court appellate jurisdiction.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at
length and have carefully perused the records.
12. The learned Single Judge has proceeded on a clear
and well-defined premise, namely, that the issue before the
Court was not the quantum of the alleged misappropriation but
the legality of the action taken by the District Magistrate. The
focus of judicial scrutiny was whether the order of recovery
dated 21.12.2018 was supported by any statutory provision and
whether such action had been preceded by adherence to the
minimum requirements of fairness.
13. From the materials brought on record, it is evident
Patna High Court L.P.A No.169 of 2021(4) dt.26-02-2026
6/7
that the recovery was directed against the respondent after his
retirement. However, nothing has been shown before this Court
to indicate the specific source of power under which such
recovery was ordered in the manner adopted. Administrative
action affecting civil rights must trace its authority to law. In
absence of any demonstrated legal provision authorizing such
post-retirement recovery through a mere administrative order,
the action cannot be sustained.
14. This Court also finds that the learned Single Judge
correctly observed that the permissibility of the action in law is
the determinative factor. Even assuming that an enquiry was
conducted and a reduced amount was quantified, such
determination by itself would not clothe the authority with
jurisdiction unless the recovery is anchored in a valid legal
framework.
15. In intra court appellate jurisdiction, this Court
does not sit as a Court of first instance to re-appreciate the entire
controversy afresh. Interference is warranted only where the
findings recorded are shown to be manifestly erroneous,
perverse, or contrary to settled legal principles. The reasoning
assigned by the learned Single Judge is consistent, legally
sound, and based on the record. No jurisdictional error or patent
Patna High Court L.P.A No.169 of 2021(4) dt.26-02-2026
7/7
illegality has been demonstrated by the appellants.
16. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that
the learned Single Judge rightly held the order dated 21.12.2018
to be unsustainable. Once the principal order of recovery was
quashed, the consequential order issued by the Establishment
Section could not independently survive.
17. Accordingly, the present intra court appeal being
devoid of merit, stands dismissed.
18. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Rajesh/-
U
Checking your session…