PAYAL RAJ Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dtd. 11/6/2016 (Annexure-7), whereby order for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,42,867.00 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.6,98,751.00 including Rs.5,40,600.00 towards payment labours and Rs.1,58,151.00 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 dtd. 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 31/1/2012 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 dtd. 13/5/2013 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 dtd. 20/9/2014, issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur and the report dtd. 18/11/2014, prepared by the Inspection Team, was forwarded vide letter dtd. 21/11/2014. Thereafter, another enquiry report dtd. 20/7/2015 was submitted before the concerned Authorities. On the basis of the aforesaid reports, an interim order was passed vide memo No. 1716 dtd. 19/9/2015, 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 3/11/2015, 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.3,42,867.00 was issued against the petitioner vide memo No. 1443 dtd. 11/6/2016. 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 22/7/2016 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.