JUDGMENT

Mohit Kumar Shah, J. - The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order contained in memo no. 3481 dated 25.11.2019, passed by the Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, i.e. Respondent No. 3, whereby and whereunder the representation filed by the petitioner against the order of recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,99,900/- from the amount of leave encashment of the petitioner has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on 09.12.1980 as Assistant Engineer and subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer, whereafter he was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in the year, 2000. The petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer, Road Construction Department, Patna West Pali, for a period of about 10 months i.e. from 06.03.2000 to 25.01.2001 and at that time, a work relating to construction of road from Dulhin Bazar to Rai Talab and from Pali to Kinjar was going on from 1998- 1999 itself, however, the petitioner was transferred from the said place on 25.01.2001. Subsequently, the petitioner had superannuated from his services while working on the post of Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Maharajganj, on 31.01.2015.

3. It is the further contention of the petitioner that without giving any show cause notice or without initiating any proceeding, an order has been passed by the respondents to recover a sum of Rs. 3,99,900/- from the amount of leave encashment payable to the petitioner herein. The petitioner had then filed a representation objecting to the said deduction from his leave encashment amount, however to no avail, necessitating filing of a writ petition before this Court bearing CWJC No. 6560 of 2019, which was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 23.04.2019, granting liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the Respondent No. 3, who was directed to dispose of the representation within a period of six weeks thereafter by a reasoned order in accordance with law. The petitioner had then filed his representation, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the Respondent No. 3.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned action of making deduction from the amount of leave encashment payable to the petitioner, in absence of any departmental or judicial proceeding having been held against the petitioner, is illegal, thus, no recovery can be made from the retiral dues of the petitioner herein.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondents-State has submitted that the petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer, Road Construction Department, Patna West Pali, and at that time, the work relating to construction of Road from Dulhin Bazar to Rani Talab and from Pali to Kinjar was not executed in accordance with specification, hence, an explanation was sought for vide letter dated 24.02.2011 from the Road Construction Department, whereupon reply was submitted, however, the same was not found satisfactorily. Hence, in the report no. 548 of the CAG, Public Accounts Committee, recommendation was made for recovery of a sum of Rs. 26.66 lacs from the officers concerned and accordingly upon calculation, the proportionate share of the petitioner totals upto a sum of Rs. 3,99,900/-, whereafter a letter was issued by the Rural Works Department, Bihar, Patna, vide memo dated 02.08.2018 by which decision has been taken to recover a sum of Rs. 3,99,900/- from the leave encashment amount payable to the petitioner. It is thus submitted that there is no illegality in recovery of the aforesaid amount from the retiral benefits of the petitioner.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the materials available on record. It is a well-settled law that pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government, on the other hand, the right to pension is a valuab