Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 105 (JHR)

Kripa Sindhu Mahakud v. State of Jharkhand

2016-01-14

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2016
ORDER : Heard counsel for the parties. 2. On account of being Secretary of a Building Construction Committee, petitioner who was also a teacher of Middle School, Nandpur, Manoharpur, was made responsible for execution of construction of Block Resource Centre for an estimated amount of Rs. 9,66,272/-. For non-execution of the work, his salary was stopped by letter no. 349 dated 17.02.2005. It was resumed on petitioner's request by letter no. 784 dated 28.03.2005, but the work of construction could not be completed. The Block Education Extension Officer, Manoharpur (North) communicated the said state of facts by letter no. 97 dated 02.09.2005. Again his salary was stopped by Memo No. 2872 dated 09.09.2005 and a show-cause was issued upon him. The Block Education Extension Officer, Manoharpur again reported through Memo No. 119 dated 28.10.2005 that the construction work of the building in question is incomplete. A joint report was prepared after site inspection by the petitioner along with the Assistant Engineer, Jharkhand Education Project containing the details of execution of work and left over work. Upon that report, it transpired that the work of Rs. 1,55,699/-had remained unexecuted, though the entire amount was disbursed. 3. Petitioner being aggrieved by the stoppage of his salary, had approached this Court in WPS No. 3755/2006. The District Superintendent of Education, West Singhbhum was directed by judgment dated 26.09.2006 (Annexure-1) passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court to pass a reasoned order upon consideration of the petitioner's grievance within a period of three weeks. It was indicated that if there are no valid orders for withholding the petitioner's salary, the same should be released along with its arrears within a stipulated time, failing which it would carry interest at a particular rate also. It was observed that Government is at liberty to fix the liability for the loss on account of delayed payment and office shall realize the same from the erring official. The impugned order at Annexure-3 dated 26.10.2006 bearing Memo No. 3172 has been passed pursuant thereto by the Respondent No. 2 – District Superintendent of Education, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa. By the impugned order, Headmaster / Drawing and Disbursing Officer has been directed to release balance salary of the petitioner after recovering the amount of Rs. 1,55,669/-. 4. The impugned order at Annexure-3 dated 26.10.2006 bearing Memo No. 3172 has been passed pursuant thereto by the Respondent No. 2 – District Superintendent of Education, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa. By the impugned order, Headmaster / Drawing and Disbursing Officer has been directed to release balance salary of the petitioner after recovering the amount of Rs. 1,55,669/-. 4. This has been assailed by the petitioner on the grounds that the petitioner was not the sole person responsible for execution of the work. When the Assistant Engineer of the Jharkhand Education Project was also a joint signatory for withdrawal of the amounts entrusted towards execution of the work by the Committee in question, petitioner alone should not be liable for the said amount. It is submitted that the petitioner being a teacher, tried his best to get the work executed, but could not. Payments which have been made on account of his joint signature, were issued under duress exercised upon him. It is also submitted that the undertaking given by the petitioner vide Annexure-A to the counter affidavit dated 28.03.2005, was also under pressure as his salary had been stopped. Therefore, if the matter has not been properly inquired to fix the proportionate responsibility of the person responsible for execution of the work, petitioner alone should not be made to suffer. The amount of Rs. 1,03,012/-has already been recovered from him and remaining amount of Rs. 52,657/-has to be recovered. 5. As per the respondents, petitioner had given an undertaking being the Secretary of the Committee entrusted with the responsibility, to complete the work, failing which he alone would be responsible for the same. Annexure-A is being relied upon in support thereof. The execution of work remained affected which led to stoppage of salary of the petitioner from time to time and only after inspection and inquiry in which the petitioner also participated, it transpired that the work amounting to Rs. 1,55,669/-remained incomplete. Petitioner being the Secretary of the Committee was responsible for the same, as per his own undertaking, therefore, recovery of the said amount is proper in the eye of law. The impugned order need not be interfered on these grounds and facts. 6. 1,55,669/-remained incomplete. Petitioner being the Secretary of the Committee was responsible for the same, as per his own undertaking, therefore, recovery of the said amount is proper in the eye of law. The impugned order need not be interfered on these grounds and facts. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has reiterated his submission and referred to the statement made in the rejoinder affidavit as well, stating that he was only one of the three signatory for the purposes of issuing a cheque and alone could not be held responsible for non-execution of the remaining work. Petitioner has retired as well. It is further stated by referring to para-25 of the writ petition that the building is complete in all respects and school in the name of Kasturba Gandhi Girls High School is running in the said school. 7. Considered the submissions of the parties in the factual road map of the case noticed herein-above. It is true that the petitioner was only one of the three signatory for disbursement of amounts towards construction of the building in question and for non-execution of the work, he should not have been saddled alone without taking a decision upon a responsibility of other persons responsible for execution of the work. That does not seem to have been undertaken by the Respondent No. 2 while passing the impugned order. In the judgment passed in the petitioner's case also, learned Single Judge of this Court had clearly observed that Government should fix the liability for loss on account of delayed payment and office should realize the same from the erring official. Whether petitioner alone was responsible for non-execution of the work or other two persons had also a role to play, does not seem to have been enquired into and decided by the concerned Respondent No. 2 while ordering recovery of Rs. 1,55,669/-on account of non-execution of the remaining part of the building. 8. Petitioner has contended that the building in question has been completed in all respects. In any case, much weight cannot be attached to the undertaking given by the petitioner under compulsion for seeking release of his salary, as made out by the respondents by relying upon letter dated 28.03.2005 written by the petitioner in such circumstances. 8. Petitioner has contended that the building in question has been completed in all respects. In any case, much weight cannot be attached to the undertaking given by the petitioner under compulsion for seeking release of his salary, as made out by the respondents by relying upon letter dated 28.03.2005 written by the petitioner in such circumstances. The concerned Respondent No. 2 was required to undertake this exercise in order to come to a decision on the proportionate liability/responsibility of all the functionaries including the petitioner for execution of the work. That having not been made, the decision is rendered vitiated in law as well as on facts. It is accordingly quashed. Respondent No. 2 would take a fresh decision in accordance with law in the matter after due application of mind by fixing responsibility on the individual functionaries who were given responsibility for execution of the work. If the Respondent No. 2 finds that the building in question has been duly completed in due course of time and expenditure of amount have been duly explained, it would always be open to him to absolve any of the person including the petitioner from the said responsibility/liability. Let such an exercise be conducted within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Writ petition is allowed in the manner indicated herein-above.