SITA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the parties are present.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - "for an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing of office order dtd. 21/12/2013 (i.e. Annexure 1) passed by the learned Lokpal, MANREGA, Deoghar whereby and whereunder she has directed to recover the amount which was spent for construction of irrigation wall from the Panchyat Sewak, Rojgar Sewak, Junior Engineer as well as the Mukhiya i.e. the petitioner herein. AND Be further pleased to quash the letter No. 1245 dtd. 22/7/2015 (i.e. Annexure 4) issued by the Respondent No. 6 whereby and whereunder he has directed the petitioner to deposit 3,04,264.00 within a week time. AND/OR Pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper for doing sustainable justice to the petitioner."

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the Mukhiya at the relevant point of time and upon a complaint, the Lokpal, MANREGA, Deoghar under the MANREGA Act had passed an order in Lokpal Case No. 07 of 2013 for recovery certain amount from Panchyat Sewak, Rojgar Sewak, Junior Engineer as well as the Mukhiya (the petitioner). The learned counsel submits that in the aforesaid case, the petitioner was not a party. He submits that the entire allegation was that instead of constructing 15 inch wall in the 3ft. of wall, the construction of 10 inch wall made .