Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 882 (JHR)

Suryanath Pandey v. State of Jharkhand

2008-08-06

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2008
Order In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ commanding upon the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner from August, 2007 till January, 2008 with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date the petitioner was entitled to till the date of payment, and to pay the current salary which has been withheld by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted the concerned site accounts (sthal lekha). Further prayer has been made to declare and hold that the duties of the store keeper is confined only to the custody, preservation and issue of stores under his authority and to keep the required returns relating to them as stipulated in para 285 of the Public Works Department (PWD) Code and that the storekeeper is not required to submit the site account (sthallekha). 2. The petitioner is employed as a storekeeper since 1994 and he is presently posted as such in the Divisional Stores, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Swarnrekha Sub-Division, Ranchi. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Assistant Engineer) by his letter no. 29 dated 1.2.2006 directed the petitioner to produce the site account relating to the stores of the petitioner. By a subsequent letter no. 32 dated 3.8.2007, the Junior Engineer of the Stores Branch, directed the petitioner to produce the site account stating therein that on the petitioner's failure, the matter shall be reported to the higher authorities to stop payment of salary of the petitioner from August, 2007 and to take disciplinary action. A similar letter was issued by the Executive Engineer under Memo No. 1051 dated 6.8.2007. 4. In response to the above letters, the petitioner filed his representation on 22.8.2007 expressing his inability to produce the demanded site account and stating that it was not within the domain of his jurisdiction. In spite of his representation, payment of salary to the petitioner was stopped from August, 2007 only on the ground that he had failed to comply with the orders of the superiors. 5. In spite of his representation, payment of salary to the petitioner was stopped from August, 2007 only on the ground that he had failed to comply with the orders of the superiors. 5. Sri Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have no authority under the law to withhold the salary of the petitioner on the ground declared by them, since in his capacity as storekeeper, his duties have been defined in para 285 of the PWD Code under which his duties are confined only to custody, preservation and issue of the stores under his charge and to keep the required returns relating to them. Learned counsel submits that the respondent authorities cannot c9mpel the petitioner to produce the site account which, as a matter of fact, is the work of the Junior Engineer (respondent no. 7). 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. While admitting the fact that by virtue of the post as storekeeper, the petitioner's duties are defined under para 285 of the aforesaid Code under which his duties are confined to the custody, preservation and issue of stores under his charge and to keep required returns relating to them, Mr. Modi, representing the respondents explains that the petitioner's duty is to maintain the required returns including the duty to submit returns giving accounts of the stores which in common parlance is termed as the "works site accounts". It is further submitted that after assuming the charge of the stores, the petitioner had submitted the site accounts up to March, 2006 and thereafter from April, 2006, he failed to submit the accounts to the Division in spite of several reminders issued to him and it was only after giving him a warning that his salary has been withheld from August, 2007 in contemplation of further appropriate action against him. It is further submitted that while asking the petitioner to submit site account, he was also advised to avail the assistance of the Junior Engineer in the matter of preparation of the report and to submit the report accordingly, so that his pending salary may be released, but the petitioner has adopted a stubborn and defiant attitude, thereby disobeying the orders of his immediate controlling authority. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents explains that pursuant to the order dated 15.2.2002 passed by this Court in WPS No. 1207 of 2007, Government of Jharkhand in the Department of Water Resources, had while explaining the provision .of paragraph 285 of the PWD Code, has notified, by its circular dated 8.4.2002, that the duties of the stores keeper as stated in para 285 of the aforesaid Code casts a responsibility on the store keeper to keep an account of the various stocks kept in stores and at places adjoining the stores, and he shall also take charge of the stock and articles at the works site. 8. From a plain reading of the paragraph 285 of the Code, it would indicate that the duties of the stores keeper is to maintain custody, preservation and issue of stores under his charge and to keeping the required returns relating to them. It implies therefore that the store keeper is the custodian of the materials received in the stores and is supposed to maintain accounts of the stock of materials/articles he has received in his stores and of the disbursement of the materials made by him on the basis of requisitions and to keep an account thereof in registers or in such a manner as may be prescribed on day-to-day basis. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner agrees that the petitioner's duty as a store keeper is to maintain accounts in the manner as stated above and whenever called upon, to produce the stock account registers before the concerned authorities. 10. learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was merely called upon to submit an abstract of the stock account register month wise in the same manner as he used to do in the past. 11. In the light of the above submissions, the petitioner shall prepare an abstract of the store accounts register month wise and submit the same to his superior authority. To begin with, the petitioner shall prepare an abstract, as stated above commencing from the month of April, 2006 and shall submit the same before his superior in office, within three months from the date of this order, and if necessary, with the privilege given to him by the Executive Engineer, he may seek assistance of the Junior Engineer of the Department in the matter of preparation of the abstracts. Since the duties of the petitioner as the store keeper as per para 285 of the PWD Code has been explained in the aforesaid notification dated 8.4.2002 of the State Government, the petitioner shall perform his duties in terms of the Explanation given in the aforesaid notification and he shall not be called upon to perform or discharge any other function which is beyond the scope of his duties as defined in para 285 of the Code and explained in the aforesaid Government Notification dated 8.4.2002. 12. As regards the stoppage of salary of the petitioner, admittedly, no departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner on the ground of indiscipline or misconduct and in absence of any order by way of punishment, salary of the petitioner cannot be legally withheld by the respondents. The respondents are therefore directed to forthwith release the salary of the petitioner, which has been withheld admittedly from August, 2007 and shall also pay him the arrears of salary accumulated till date and shall continue to pay salary for the current months. With the above observations, this application is disposed of.