Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1189 (JHR)

Dhanpat Sahu v. State of Jharkhand

2019-06-20

S.N.PATHAK

body2019
JUDGMENT : The petitioners have approached this Court for quashing the letter dated -10-1157/aarop (Gumla)/2016/gr. vi. (M) 130 Ranchi dated 11.01.2017 whereby and whereunder the Deputy Development Commissioner directed by the Commissioner of MNREGA to take necessary administrative action against responsible persons, those who are involved to the scheme as floated by Commissioner, MNREGA. Subsequent prayer has been made for quashing the order of recovery dated 31.01.2017 (Annexure-8). 2. As per the factual matrix, the petitioner No.1 is the Panchayat Sewak and petitioner No.2 is the Mukhiya of the said village, Petitioner No.3 is the Rojgar Sewak. A complaint was filed whereby and whereunder the irregularities was pointed out by one Saroj Hembrom in MANREGA scheme and a committee of two men namely Mr. Dinesh Kumar Tayagi and Shiv Shankar Singh was constituted for inspecting the plot of the said scheme and a report to that extent was also submitted. After receiving the report, the Special Work Officer of MANREGA vide letter No.10-1157/aarop(Gumla)/2016/gr. Vi. (M) 2798 Ranchi dated 18.11.2016 forwarded the enquiry report and directed the Deputy Development Commissioner cum District Programme Samanwayak for taking necessary action against the guilty persons. 3. It is specific case of the petitioners that after the report, they were compelled to deposit the scheme amount though the scheme was completed as per the guideline issued by the MANREGA. It is stated that vide letter dated 11.01.2017 the Deputy Development Commissioner has been directed by the Commissioner of MANREGA to take necessary administrative action against the persons those who were involved in the said scheme. The respondents vide memo no. 05(i) M.KO. dated 31.01.2017 has ordered for recovery of the amount from the person including the petitioner with 12% interest. The petitioners have already deposited the amount and as they had neither involvement in the construction of the road nor they were found guilty in the construction of the well, they were held guilty and forced to deposit the amount and as such the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra emphatically argues that Annexure-8 and Annexure-2 are not at all sustainable in the eyes of law. Since already the petitioners have been exonerated by giving a simple warning by the respondents, there was no occasion for taking any administrative action by the respondent-authorities regarding construction of well. Learned Sr. V.P. Singh, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra emphatically argues that Annexure-8 and Annexure-2 are not at all sustainable in the eyes of law. Since already the petitioners have been exonerated by giving a simple warning by the respondents, there was no occasion for taking any administrative action by the respondent-authorities regarding construction of well. Learned Sr. Counsel further argues that even from the enquiry report, it appears that petitioners were not involved in construction of road and nothing has been brought on record to show that how the petitioners were held responsible in construction of road and in what capacity recovery was made. Further learned Sr. Counsel submits that from the counter-affidavit, it appears that charges have been framed and “Prapatra “Ka” has been issued, however, without affording any opportunity of hearing, the respondents cannot be permitted to issue “Prapatra “Ka” and as such initiation of departmental proceeding itself is bad in law. 5. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. 6. Mr. S. Bhowmik, A.C. to S.C. III (Mines) justifies the order of recovery and submits that since the petitioners have already been punished by imposing a punishment of warning the first part reconstruction of well is over and regarding second part as far as construction of road is concerned already “Prapatra “Ka” has been issued. From the enquiry report, respondents are fully satisfied that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners and as such “Prapatra “Ka” has been issued and likely to be served on the petitioners. 7. Learned Counsel submits that as already recovery has been made, the petitioner is expected to appear before the Enquiry Officer and co-operate in the departmental proceeding. Justifying the impugned order, learned Counsel submits that no interference is warranted and hence it is fit to be dismissed. 8. Having heard the parties, this Court is of the opinion that since already order has been passed regarding construction of well and punishment has been imposed by giving warning, no interference is warranted in the part of the order of the authorities. However, regarding construction of road already it has been enquired and the same has been brought on record. Having heard the parties, this Court is of the opinion that since already order has been passed regarding construction of well and punishment has been imposed by giving warning, no interference is warranted in the part of the order of the authorities. However, regarding construction of road already it has been enquired and the same has been brought on record. Since the respondents have made out a prima facie case regarding involvement of the petitioners and have already prepared “Prapatra “Ka” which is likely to be served on the petitioners and since departmental proceeding has already been initiated on issuance of “Prapatra “Ka”, the petitioners are directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer and to take all the grounds available to them and file all documents showing their non-involvement in the construction of the road. Enquiry Officer is directed to give ample opportunity of hearing and genuineness and veracity of the report shall also be examined. The petitioners are directed to co-operate in the departmental proceeding and the entire departmental proceeding shall be concluded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Needless to say if the petitioners fail to appear and cooperate with the enquiry officer in the departmental proceeding, respondents are at liberty to proceed ex parte and pass order on the enquiry report and the documents available. Specific dates shall be fixed on which the petitioners shall appear and cooperate with the enquiry officer in the departmental proceeding. The petitioners shall be informed the date prior to their appearance in the departmental proceeding. The petitioner shall be given one week prior information for their appearance in the departmental proceeding. Since the recovery has already been done, the same will be subject to outcome of the departmental proceeding. 10. As a sequel of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, the writ petitions stand disposed of. 11. Consequently all I.A.s stand disposed of.