Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 645 (JHR)

Sanjay Nath Deogharia v. State of Jharkhand

2017-04-07

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2017
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 1. The grievances of the petitioners were taken note of in the order dated 29.07.2013, which is quoted hereunder:- “By way of supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of the petitioners, they have brought on record a letter no. 1214 dated 10.10.2011 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga addressed to the Senior Accounts Examination Officer, Office of Accountant General, Jharkhand Ranchi. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders dated 1.9.2006 were based upon audit objection dated 26.04.2006 for recovery of amounts, which were earlier paid to the petitioners on account of grant of B.Sc Untrained scale of Rs. 680-965 from the date of their appointment. 3. However, it is submitted that the order itself was issued after similar such orders against these petitioners were earlier quashed by the High Court on the ground of violation of principal of natural justice. However, on this occasion also no effective opportunity was granted to the petitioners as it is evident from the show cause notice, which is contained in Annexure-F to their counter affidavit, the same does not even refer to the audit objection dated 26.4.2006. He further submits that now the District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga in letter dated 10.10.2011 himself has sought to meet the aforesaid objections in the light of categorical chronology of events and facts disclosed therein. In such circumstances, the respondents themselves may be required to recall the aforesaid order if the audit objections are accepted. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that he needs to obtain instruction in respect of letter dated 10.10.2011 issued by District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga. 5. In the facts, which have narrated herein-above, learned counsel for the respondents is allowed six weeks time to obtain instruction in the matter and file specific response.” 6. Thereafter on 26.02.2015, the District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga was directed to pass a reasoned order taking note of the fact that petitioners have not been provided any opportunity of being heard. The respondent took further time on the next few dates so that fresh decision of the District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga would be brought on record. 7. 2nd Supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga on 18.04.2016 enclosing the reasoned order dated 05.04.2016 bearing memo no. 701 (Annexure-B). The respondent took further time on the next few dates so that fresh decision of the District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga would be brought on record. 7. 2nd Supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga on 18.04.2016 enclosing the reasoned order dated 05.04.2016 bearing memo no. 701 (Annexure-B). Para-10 of the affidavit contains the stand of the respondent as per the fresh speaking and reasoned order, which is quoted hereunder:- “10. That it is stated and humbly submitted that as per the direction of this Hon'ble Court the answering respondent heard the petitioners on 25.01.2016 at length and after due consideration of relevant facts of the case, orders of the Hon'ble High Court, letters of the Department and order of different Deputy Commissioners on the similar issue, the answering respondent District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga, has passed a detail and speaking order vide memo no. 701/LO dated 05.04.2016. According to this reasoned order the letter no. 742-766 dated 01.09.2006 has been rescinded by the answering respondent.” 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has clarified that reference made to letter no. 742-766 in para-10 of the supplementary counter affidavit is inadvertently typed as 01.09.2016 though it is the impugned order dated 01.09.2006. 9. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, fresh reasoned order dated 05.04.2016 has revoked the impugned order dated 01.09.2006. It is submitted that B.Sc. Untrained Scale of Rs. 680-965/-and B. Sc. Trained Scale of Rs. 1640-2900/-granted vide Memo Nos. 181-219 dated 23.03.1995 have been restored and are intact. This redresses the grievances of the petitioners. 10. In view of the fresh reasoned order passed, the grievances of the petitioners have been redressed. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.