JUDGMENT :

S.N. PATHAK, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing part of order dated 30.05.2020 (Annexure-6), passed by respondent No. 3, the District Superintendent of Education, Giridih, whereby, two increment of salary of the petitioner was ordered to be withheld retrospectively from 2008 and it was decided to adjust difference amount consequent thereto from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. Petitioner has further prayed for direction upon the respondent to pay all consequential benefits as per fixation of his pension.

3. The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher on 10.02.1981 in primary School Manjhne Gawan. On 24.08.2006, when a surprise inspection was conducted by respondent No. 3, the petitioner was on leave but the respondent under misconception of facts, passed an order of suspension vide its order dated 06.09.2006 considering the petitioner on unauthorized leave. Thereafter, an enquiry was set-up against the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer, after conducting the Enquiry, submitted his report on 03.01.2008, finding the petitioner innocent and the allegation was found to be incorrect. Upon receipt of the enquiry report, the order of suspension passed against the petitioner was revoked but while doing so, two increments of salary had been withheld by the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 19.06.2008. Thereafter, on the representation of the petitioner, the respondent vide its order dated 30.12.2013, granted the benefits of the two increments which has been withheld by the respondents vide order dated 19.06.2008. On attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired on 31.12.2019. It is the specific case of the petitioner that after his retirement, the respondents vide its order dated 30.05.2020, arbitrarily and illegally passed the order of recovery and recovered an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid illegal and arbitrary action of the respondents, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court.

4. Mr. Arwind Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that the impugned order passed by respondent No. 3 is contrary to law and against the established principle of service jurisprudence. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents themselves have revoked the order of withholding of two increments and as such, no recovery is permissible from the retiral dues of the petitioner. Learned counsel further argues that the action of the respondents is against the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and as such, the impugned order is fit to be quashed and set aside.

5. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and argues that two increment of petitioner has been withheld from the retrospective effect as per decision of District Education Establishment Committee meeting dated 14.01.2008 vide memo no. 1036 dated 19.06.2008. Moreover, it has never been recalled by the Competent Authority i.e. District Education Establishment Committee, Giridih. Learned counsel further argues that upon the representations of the petitioner, respondents put-up the matter of the petitioner before the District Education Establishment Committee’s meeting dated 13.01.2017, in which it was decided that since the suspension of the petitioner was revoked, with condition to withhold the two increments from cumulative effect, hence, the same authority cannot reconsider the matter.

6. Learned counsel further argues that vide order dated 14.06.2021, this Court has directed the Director, Secondary Education to file a specific affidavit within a period of three weeks on the following issues:

1. If the petitioner was exonerated by the Enquiry Officer, whether without assigning reasons, the increments of the petitioner can