Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 322 (JHR)

Payal Raj v. State of Jharkhand

2022-03-22

S.N.PATHAK

body2022
JUDGMENT : S.N. PATHAK, J. 1. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 11.06.2016 (Annexure-7), whereby order for recovery of an amount of Rs. 3,42,867/- has been passed. 2. The facts of the case lies in narrow compass. The petitioner was selected in 3rd Combined Civil Services Examination conducted by JPSC and was appointed as Block Development Officer, Kasmar, Bokaro. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred and posted as Block Development Officer, Potka, Jamshedpur and thereafter, she was transferred to the district of Godda. After having posted as Block Development Officer in several districts of State, petitioner is present working and posted as Executive Magistrate, Bundu. It is the specific case of the petitioner that while she was posted as Block Development Officer, Potka, Jamshedpur, work order for construction work of Moram Road from Aanglidugri to Dorkasai being Yojna No. 03/11-12 was floated in Kalikapur Panchayat of Potka Block under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (for short ‘MGNREGA’) total cost of work was Rs. 6,98,751/- including Rs. 5,40,600/- towards payment labours and Rs. 1,58,151/- towards costs of materials. It is the case of the petitioner that it was the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum who had given direction for execution of the work of construction of Moram Road from Aanglidugri to Dorkasai and accordingly, a work order in light of letter dated 24.10.2011 was issued by the petitioner to the Jan Sevak for execution of the work. Subsequently, the work was executed, measurement book was prepared by the concerned Junior Engineer and muster roll was maintained by the Panchayat Sevak. The work was completed within time on 31.01.2012 and a certificate to that effect was also issued by the Executive Engineer. Thereafter, upon verification of the work, cheque was issued for payment of labours working under MGNREGA. It is the specific case of the petitioner that after completion of work, an enquiry was made by Director-cum-Nodel Officer (MGNREGA) and submitted report dated 13.05.2013 wherein he found the work to be satisfactory. Hence, payments were made by cheques through the Jan Sevak. Thereafter, upon verification of the work, cheque was issued for payment of labours working under MGNREGA. It is the specific case of the petitioner that after completion of work, an enquiry was made by Director-cum-Nodel Officer (MGNREGA) and submitted report dated 13.05.2013 wherein he found the work to be satisfactory. Hence, payments were made by cheques through the Jan Sevak. It is further case of the petitioner that subsequent to the first enquiry, in which work was found to be satisfactory, another enquiry after two years of completion of work was started in light of memo No. 1617 dated 20.09.2014, issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur and the report dated 18.11.2014, prepared by the Inspection Team, was forwarded vide letter dated 21.11.2014. Thereafter, another enquiry report dated 20.07.2015 was submitted before the concerned Authorities. On the basis of the aforesaid reports, an interim order was passed vide Memo No. 1716 dated 19.09.2015, whereby the petitioner, technical persons and others had been held liable and it was directed to make recovery in equal share from all of them. Petitioner along with others were also directed to submit their explanation. Since the petitioner was on maternity leave and had given birth to a female child at Mumbai on 03.11.2015, she could not file her reply within the specified period. However, without waiting for her reply and without issuance of show-cause notice, the order of recovery to the tune of Rs. 3,42,867/- was issued against the petitioner vide memo No. 1443 dated 11.06.2016. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has knocked the door of this Court by way of this writ petition 3. Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously argues that the impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law as the same was issued without even issuance of show-cause notice and without hearing the petitioner. Even the petitioner was not given any opportunity to file her reply. Learned counsel further argues that any prudent person cannot inflict punishment in view of the fact that petitioner was on maternity leave. The issue was considered by this Court on 22.07.2016 and after hearing the parties, the order of recovery was stayed. Even the petitioner was not given any opportunity to file her reply. Learned counsel further argues that any prudent person cannot inflict punishment in view of the fact that petitioner was on maternity leave. The issue was considered by this Court on 22.07.2016 and after hearing the parties, the order of recovery was stayed. Learned counsel submits that since the order of recovery has already been stayed as the same has been issued without any show-cause notice and without following the cardinal principle of law, the order of recovery is fit to be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Manish Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State draws the attention of the Court towards several paragraphs of counter-affidavit and very fairly submits that admittedly, the impugned order was issued without waiting for reply from the petitioner. Learned counsel further argues that the contention of the petitioner that as she was on maternity leave, she could not file her reply is not justified. There was no option left to the respondents other than to inflict order of punishment as it was loss to the State Exchequer and the same has to be compensated by recovering the amount from the responsible persons. Justifying the impugned order, Mr. Mishra submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order and the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 5. Be that as it may, having heard the rival submissions of the parties across the bar and upon perusal of the documents brought on record, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration for the following facts and reasons: (I) Admittedly, the petitioner was on maternity leave. It is not a case that petitioner was on unauthorized absence. However, the respondent-authorities without waiting for reply of the petitioner, had issued the order of punishment, which is not tenable in the eyes of law and the same can be termed to nullity in the eyes of law. (II) Nothing has been brought on record as to whether any reply was sought for from the petitioner or whether any proceeding has ever been initiated before inflicting order of punishment. (II) Nothing has been brought on record as to whether any reply was sought for from the petitioner or whether any proceeding has ever been initiated before inflicting order of punishment. Matter relates to the year 2011 but even after lapse of 10 years, the respondents have not arisen from the deep slumber to take action against the petitioner by initiation of full dressed proceeding keeping in mind that this Court has only stayed the recovery part. 6. Since the matter relates to embezzlement of money, the respondents are free to initiate appropriate proceeding in accordance with law if it is found that petitioner is involved in the said embezzlement which has caused loss to the State Exchequer. 7. However, as the order of recovery dated 11.06.2016 has been issued in complete violation of cardinal principles of natural justice, the same is not tenable in the eyes of law and hence, is hereby quashed and set aside. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.