Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2102 (JHR)

Md. Hafiz Khan v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-12-06

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2017
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the instant writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 27.11.2007 vide Annexure-4, issued by the respondent No. 2, pertaining to deduction of amount of Rs. 40,000/- from the petitioner in five equal instalments. 2. The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, are that the petitioner joined as the In-charge Principal of the Urdu Board Middle School, Shahnagar, Jharia. While continuing, as such, he was selected as the Secretary and one Rehana Khatoon was selected as the President of the said School. The petitioner in the capacity of the Secretary entered into an agreement with the proprietor of M/s. Lohar Engineering Work Shop, Bhaga, P.S. Jorapokhar, District-Dhanbad for supplying furniture in the said Middle School, Jharia, Circle Jharia, Dhanbad and in pursuant thereto, an agreement was executed, wherein, it was stated that the furnitures have to be built according to the specification given by the Government and the details of the materials to be used, was mentioned in the agreement. It was also mentioned in the agreement that if the furniture are not made according to the specification therein, then the legal action would be taken and an advance amount of Rs. 45,000/- was given to the proprietor Ajay Sharma of M/s. Lohar Engineering Work Shop and six desks were delivered to the School. After some days, the furniture sent by the proprietor was found to be of inferior quality and accordingly, the proprietor was informed to take back the desks and advance of Rs. 45,000/- be returned, but, unfortunately, neither the desks were taken back nor the amount was returned to the School. The School was also inspected by the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad (Respondent No. 2) on 09.09.2007 and on being found that the desks were of inferior quality, an F.I.R. was lodged against M/s. Lohar Engineering Work Shop and the petitioner was asked for clarification regarding the same. Thereafter, the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad (Respondent No. 2) vide letter dated 27.11.2007 informed the petitioner that if the advance amount could not be recovered from M/s. Lohar Engineering Work Shop, then the amount shall be deducted from the salary of the petitioner in five equal instalments vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition, which is impugned in this writ petition. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid letter, vide Annexure-4, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. Mr. Shiv Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing has submitted that the action of the respondent No. 2 by directing the respondent No. 6 to deduct the amount from the salary of the petitioner in five equal instalments smacks of arbitrary exercise of power. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned letter has been issued without following the principles of natural justice. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 2, controverting the averments made in the writ application. In the counter affidavit, it has been, inter alia, submitted that during inspection of the School, it was found that the furniture is dumped in the class room without using it for the purpose, it was purchased. The then In-charge, Headmaster was asked to get the amount refunded otherwise, the same would be recovered from the salary of the petitioner. It has been further submitted that the petitioner has been asked to recover and deposit the amount paid to the supplier vide letter dated 01.11.2007 vide Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. It has been further submitted that the petitioner had received the sub standard quality of furniture in the month of April, 2007 and, no action was taken by the petitioner to recover the amount from the supplier. The School was inspected in the month of September, 2007 and it was found that the petitioner had not taken any action for the recovery of the said amount and even after inspection, no proper action was taken by the petitioner. Thereafter in the month of November, 2007, the said letter was issued to recover the amount from the salary of the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order of recovery of the amount from the salary of the petitioner has been issued. 5. Mr. Ravi Kerketta, learned J.C. to S.C. (L&C) appearing for the Respondent-State apart from reiterating the submissions made in the counter affidavit, has assiduously submitted that the petitioner has been given ample opportunity to make good loss caused to the institution. 5. Mr. Ravi Kerketta, learned J.C. to S.C. (L&C) appearing for the Respondent-State apart from reiterating the submissions made in the counter affidavit, has assiduously submitted that the petitioner has been given ample opportunity to make good loss caused to the institution. Despite several opportunities, the petitioner did not bother to take any action against the supplier M/s. Lohar Engineering Work Shop, Dhanbad, as a result of which, the institution has suffered loss of Rs. 40,000/- and in that view of the matter, the respondents were left with no alternative, but to recover the amount from the salary of the petitioner, as per Annexure-4 to the writ petition, therefore, there is absolutely no illegality in the impugned letter. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned letter due to the following facts and reasons :- Admittedly, at the time of agreement, executed between the School and M/s. Lohar Engineering Work Shop, the petitioner was the Headmaster and the Secretary of the School and it was the responsibility of the petitioner to ensure the supply of better quality of furniture. Despite several opportunities given to the petitioner, the petitioner failed to make good loss caused to the institution, as a result of which, the impugned letter, dated 27.11.2007, vide Annexure-4, the respondent No. 2 intimated the respondent No. 6 for recovery of the amount from the salary of the petitioner. Hence, there is absolutely no illegality or infirmity in the impugned letter dated 27.11.2007 vide Annexure-4 to the writ application. 7. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs and as a logical sequitor to the aforesaid reasons, the impugned letter dated 27.11.2007 vide Annexure-4 issued by the respondent No. 2 does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, this writ petition sans merit, is hereby dismissed.