JUDGMENT : Since both the writ petitions raise a common question of law, the same are being disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. Petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 5924 of 2017 has prayed for quashing letter no. 53, dated 26.08.2017, issued by respondent no. 5 whereby petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs.1,02,973/- to the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan at Gumla through Bank Draft; letter no. 64/364, dated 13.11.2017, issued by respondent no. 5 whereby petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs.1,24,854.33 in account of Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan at Gumla having Account No. 491310100062406 of Bank of India at Gumla; Memo No. 2049, dated 30.11.2017, issued by respondent no. 5 whereby condition has been imposed against the petitioner that if he will not issue cheque/challan for payment of required installment under such circumstances, then his salary shall remain stayed; letter no. 21, dated 01.12.2017, issued by Drawing and Disbursal Office, Sisai, Gumla, whereby direction has been given to the petitioner to release rest of his salary after receiving cheque/challan issued by him for making payment on account of construction of school building and only thereafter his salary shall be prepared. Petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 1732 of 2018 has prayed for quashing letter no. 643641, dated 13.11.2017, issued from the office of respondent no. 3 – District Superintendent of Education, Gumla whereby direction has been made for recovery of total amount of Rs.3,42,723/- from three persons including the petitioner [Rs.1,24,354.33 each]; Memo No. 2049, dated 30.11.2017, whereby condition has been imposed against the petitioner that if he will not issue cheque/challan for payment of required installment, his salary shall be withheld. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction to release his arrears as well as current salary which has been withheld from the month of November, 2017 till date. 3. The facts leading to all these writ petitions, as could be culled out from the material on record are as follows. The petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 5924 of 2017 is that he was working as In charge Headmaster, Government Girls’ Middle School, Bharano and discharing her duties with full satisfaction of employer. Petitioner had been given task of supervision of extension work of school building. In the midst of the work, pursuant to the memo no. 643, dated 12.04.2012, she was directed to handover her charge to senior teacher Kisto Hazam within two days from the issuance of said memo. Petitioner had been given task of supervision of extension work of school building. In the midst of the work, pursuant to the memo no. 643, dated 12.04.2012, she was directed to handover her charge to senior teacher Kisto Hazam within two days from the issuance of said memo. After preparation of inventory, the charge was handed over to Kisto Hazam on 19.04.2012 in presence of Secretary, Village Education Committee of the said school. Said Kisto Hazam did nothing with regard to completion of left over work of School Building and after three months he handed over charge of Incharge Headmaster to one Sudhir Kumar. In the financial year 2012 – 13, the said School was again allotted further work of school building but said Sudhir Kumar fraudulently and dishonestly constructed school building by utilizing building materials brought earlier during the regime of petitioner like bricks, stone chips, sand etc. After some complaint to the Chief Minister in Jan Sambad dated 11.11.2016, petitioner has been transferred from Bharano to Sisai vide Memo No. 2236, dated 17.12.2016. Thereafter vide letter no. 2237, dated 17.12.2016 direction has been given to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.2,62,573/- in the account of the Government Girls’ Middle School, Bharno because in the financial year 2011 – 12, for construction of 3 class rooms, a sum of Rs.5,40,450/- had been sanctioned and as per Measurement Book, amount to the tune Rs.2,77,877/- had been utilized and Rs.2,62,573/- remained balance for construction. Again vide letter no. 53, dated 26.08.2017, issued by the D.S.E. Gumla, petitioner had been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,02,973/- within a period of one week to Surv Shiksha Abhiyan, Gumla, failing which further action will be taken against her. Thereafter petitioner has been served letter no. 64/364, dated 13.11.2017, issued by respondent no. 5 whereby she has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,24,854.33 in the account of Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan at Gumla. Thereafter, vide Memo No. 2049, dated 30.11.2017, condition has been imposed against the petitioner that if she will not deposit the amount, her salary will be withheld. Thereafter, vide letter no. 21, dated 01.12.2017 issued by DDO, Sisai, Gumla direction has been made to release salary of the petitioner after receiving cheque/challan issued by the petitioner for making payment on account of construction of school building. Thereafter, vide letter no. 21, dated 01.12.2017 issued by DDO, Sisai, Gumla direction has been made to release salary of the petitioner after receiving cheque/challan issued by the petitioner for making payment on account of construction of school building. Petitioner made several representation mentioning therein that she had already given charge along with detailed inventory of building materials and as such she is not liable for the unutilized amount. When no heed has been paid, petitioner has knocked door of this Court. 4. The factual exposition as has been delineated in W.P.(S) No. 1732 of 2018 is that petitioner was posted in State Girls Middle School, Bharno in the year 2006 wherein he worked till the year 2008 and subsequently he was posted at Gumla Government School on deputation and he continued there till June, 2012. During the posting of Sushma Nag [petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 5924 of 2017] as headmistress of State Girls’ School Bharno, construction of building was started and funds were allocated. However, due to complaint made in Jansambad addressed to Chief Minister, enquiry had been conducted and one Kisto Hazam was made as in-charge headmaster of the School. Said in-charge Headmaster submitted the detailed report regarding construction and conduct of Sushma Nag before the concerned respondents. It was specifically mentioned that the charge of remaining construction work of the building was not given to the charge holder i.e. Kisto Hazam by Sushma Nag. Petitioner reported the matter regarding incomplete building vide his letter no. 64, dated 01.08.2012 but no direction was given by the respondent authorities. The officiating headmaster Kisto Hazam also drew attention of the respondents authorities towards incomplete building and left over fund. After the enquiry made pursuant to the complaint no. 2016 – 70800, dated 11.11.2016 before the Jansambad, petitioner was transferred to Government School at Sisai vide letter no. 2239, dated 17.12.2016. After his representation, petitioner was re-posted on the same School i.e. State Girls’ Government School, Bharno. Thereafter, letters had been issued directing Sushma Nag to deposit the amount of defalcation to the Government treasury failing which appropriate action would be taken against her. Thereafter, vide letter no. 64/364, dated 13.11.2017 a direction has been made to deposit respective share of amount as mentioned therein as due to lacking of the petitioner, Kisto Hazam and Sushma Nag, the construction work was delayed and cost of construction of building has been enhanced. Thereafter, vide letter no. 64/364, dated 13.11.2017 a direction has been made to deposit respective share of amount as mentioned therein as due to lacking of the petitioner, Kisto Hazam and Sushma Nag, the construction work was delayed and cost of construction of building has been enhanced. Further, vide letter dated 30.11.2017, a direction has been made to the subordinate authorities for taking steps for recovery of alleged amount from all the three persons so that remaining construction work of the building may be completed and further their salary shall be withheld. Being aggrieved by aforesaid action, petitioner has knocked door of this Court. 5. Mr. Krishna Murari assisted by Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 5924 of 2017 submits that petitioner has been unnecessarily harassed and without any show-cause or any departmental proceeding, merely on the basis of complaint in Jansambad, liability has been imposed upon her for the alleged loss to the Government. It is case of the petitioner that she had already given entire charge including the charge of underconstruction building and as such, she should be absolved from the loss, if any, caused to the Government. When the charge was handed over to Kisto Hazam, petitioner cannot be held liable for the wrong, if any. The respondents authorities have no jurisdiction to discard the charge given to the next incharge i.e. Kisto Hazam. If the work has not been completed by the charge holder i.e. Kisto Hazam, petitioner or anyone cannot be held liable for the same. Respondents have not even followed the principles of natural justice and without any charge or show-cause, impugned action has been taken, which is fit to be quashed and petitioner may be given current as well as arrears of salary. 6. Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 1732 of 2018 submits that the he had no role to play in the alleged construction nor he had withdrawn a single rupees in respect of said construction. Petitioner was not even posted in the said school at the relevant period and he has been made scape goat. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 1732 of 2018 submits that the he had no role to play in the alleged construction nor he had withdrawn a single rupees in respect of said construction. Petitioner was not even posted in the said school at the relevant period and he has been made scape goat. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner cannot even be held liable for the escalation of cost and thereby causing loss to the government exchequer because in no way he can be held responsible for the delay or laches in construction work. Petitioner has not been given any notice or show-cause and without giving any opportunity of hearing connecting him with the alleged irregularities of the construction work and ignoring the fact petitioner was not even working at the relevant time in the said school. Learned counsel further submits that action of the respondents is in violation of principles of natural justice and as such, the impugned orders may be quashed and the respondents may be directed to pay current as well as arrears of salary. 7. Mr. Atanu Bannerjee, learned GA representing State-respondents submits that petitioner – Sushma Nag failed to perform her duties causing loss to the government exchequer and as such, impugned action of the respondents is fully justified. The respondents have taken impugned action only after receiving complaint in Mukhya Mantri Jansamwad and thereafter receiving report of the Enquiry Team who had visited the School in question. The enquiry team also found that petitioner – Sushma Nag had issue a cheque for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of her husband Ajhar Ali. The DSE, Gumla has also found that several misappropriation was committed by the petitioner – Sushma Nag and hence she had been removed from the post of Incharge Head Master and another senior teacher was made incharge. Petitioner cannot take advantage of violation of principles of natural justice as proper enquiry had been conducted and on the basis of said report, impugned action has been taken. 8. Mr. Petitioner cannot take advantage of violation of principles of natural justice as proper enquiry had been conducted and on the basis of said report, impugned action has been taken. 8. Mr. Fahad Allam, AC to learned GA-III appearing on behalf of the respondents – State in W.P.(S) No. 1732 of 2018 submits that crux of the case is that alleged loss to the government exchequer has been made due to laches and misappropriation on part of petitioner – Sudhir Kumar and others and as such, impugned action has been taken against them. The children are not getting School Building for their studies even when the funds had been allotted for construction of school building. The impugned action has been taken after the report of the enquiry team who had visited the school in question and made proper enquiry of the matter. Apart from the misappropriate of funds, the state has been burdened due to escalation in the cost of construction due to price hike and as such, petitioners cannot be absolved from their liability. 9. Be that as it may, having gone through the materials on record and arguments advanced by counsel for both the sides in both the writ petitions, I find force in arguments of counsel for the petitioners. There is no doubt that due to lackadaisical approach and misappropriation of funds, government funds are wasted and misappropriated and persons responsible cannot be made scot free. But the question is before imposing any penalty, appropriate opportunity of being heard must be given to the delinquent. In the instant case, after receiving complaint enquiry team visited the school and thereafter on the basis of said report, impugned action has been taken including stoppage of salary and imposition of penalty but no opportunity of being heard has been given to the petitioners. There is apparent violation of principles of natural and respondents cannot take action without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. 10. In view of the aforementioned facts, Annexures-7, 8, 9 and 10 in W.P.(S) No. 5924 of 2017 are hereby quashed. Similarly, Annexures-8 and 9 in W.P.(S) No. 1732 of 2018 are also quashed. The respondents are directed to pay current as well as arrears of salary to the petitioners subject to outcome of the departmental proceedings. However, respondents may initiate appropriate proceeding and pass appropriate orders after following the principles of natural justice. Similarly, Annexures-8 and 9 in W.P.(S) No. 1732 of 2018 are also quashed. The respondents are directed to pay current as well as arrears of salary to the petitioners subject to outcome of the departmental proceedings. However, respondents may initiate appropriate proceeding and pass appropriate orders after following the principles of natural justice. Petitioners are also directed to cooperate and participate in the departmental proceedings. 11. With aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed.