FARHANA KHATOON Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the defects as pointed out by the office are ignored.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dtd. 7/12/2021 passed by the respondent no. 3 purportedly exercising power under Sec. 10 of the Act, 1914 is bad in law as the same has been passed without proper hearing on the objection filed by the petitioner under Sec. 9 of the said Act, whereby she had denied her liability to pay the certificate amount. It was imperative on the part of the respondent no. 3 to take appropriate evidence and to determine as to whether the certificate debtor (the petitioner) is liable for whole or any part of the certificate amount sought to be realised through the certificate case in question.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4 - the District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga stating inter alia that during the relevant period, the petitioner was the District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Lohardaga and she was found involved in misappropriation of a sum of Rs.76,08,826.00. A departmental proceeding was initiated against her vide resolution no. 161 dtd. 24/7/2010 and memo of charge was served to her. After conducting the enquiry, the charge against the petitioner was found true and thereafter, she was dismissed from service vide notification no. 607 dtd. 28/6/2016. The said order/notification of dismissal has been challenged by her before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5055 of 2016, which is pending adjudication. It has further been stated in the said counter affidavit that the petitioner is liable to pay the defalcated amount of Rs.76,08,826.00 in pursuance of order dtd. 7/12/2021 passed by the respondent no. 3 in certificate case being T.R. No. 355/2020-21.