Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 319 (JHR)

Badri Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2017-02-14

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2017
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner has taken a plea that the impugned order of recovery dated 10.1.2014 and 12.3.2014, Annexure-2 and 3 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar and Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar respectively are based upon the award passed by the Lokpal, Deoghar in Case No. 1/2013 dated 31.10.2013 (Annexure-1), where in no opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself as he was no longer posted there and not in service, having retired in 2011 itself. 3. Learned counsel for the Respondent State submits that the matter was considered by the Lok Pal after due opportunity to the opposite parties being the officials of the Minor Irrigation, Planning Division, Dumka Camp, Deoghar and witnesses on their behalf, such as witness no.1, Shambhu Saran Singh, the then Assistant Engineer and witness no.2, Rakesh Kumar Ranjan, Junior Engineer were allowed to depose in defence. The directions of the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar dated 7.3.2008 to close the agreement with 'Swyam Sahayata Samuh, Kurmidih' was not acted upon by the petitioner leading to payment of MNREGA wages. All these facts have been taken into consideration before passing the award for payment of wages in respect of work executed for renovation of Kurmidih Bandh to the labourers in questions. Since the amount of Rs. 1,00,224/- was found payable against 1160 human days @ Rs. 86.40/-, the same has been ordered to be paid by the persons responsible, which includes the petitioner also apart from the then Junior Engineer, Rakesh Kumar Ranjan and the then Assistant Engineer, Pawan Kumar Mishra. Learned counsel for the Respondent State however has not been able to rebut the statements of the petitioner that in the proceedings before the Lok Pal or even before issuance of orders of recovery vide Annexure-2 and 3 by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar and Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar, any notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. 4. Respondent no.8 has appeared also and filed counter affidavit stating that payments have not been made in terms of award. However, the affidavit of Respondent no.8 neither concerns the main plea of the petitioner nor the same has been rebutted. 5. 4. Respondent no.8 has appeared also and filed counter affidavit stating that payments have not been made in terms of award. However, the affidavit of Respondent no.8 neither concerns the main plea of the petitioner nor the same has been rebutted. 5. The material facts which have been reflected from the pleadings on record and noted herein above, therefore makes out a case of violation of principles of natural justice as against the petitioner who has been saddled with a pecuniary liability to pay the amount of wages to the concerned labourers by the Lok Pal on findings of guilt against him. The impugned action entails adverse consequences and denial of opportunity to defend has definitely caused prejudice to the petitioner, who admittedly had superannuated in 2011 itself from the post of Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Sahebganj. 6. In that view of the matter, the impugned award dated 31.10.2013 passed by the Lok Pal, Deoghar in case no. 1/2013 (Annexure-1) as also the orders dated 10.1.2014 and 12.3.2014 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar and Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar, Annexure-2 and respectively, so far as it relates to the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law as well as on facts. Accordingly, they are quashed. Respondents are however at liberty to take a fresh decision in the matter after due notice and opportunity to the petitioner. 7. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid manner. I.A. No. 2027 of 2015 also stands disposed of.