SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Order No. 27/ SWSM dated 06.06.2017 issued under the signature of Engineer-in-Chief wherein and whereby petitioner has been arbitrarily ordered to pay Rs. 594745/- (Rupees Five Lacs Ninety Four Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Five only) personally to the Contractor - M/s. Sayeed Akhtar against his pending dues of Rs. 5,96,183/-. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order as contained in Letter No. 1181, Dated 11.09.2017 and 1397, dated 14.09.2017 by which representation of the petitioner for withdrawal of payment order has been rejected and asked to pay the contractor without any delay holding him guilty.

(3.) The case of the petitioner lies in narrow compass. When petitioner was posted as an Executive Engineer at Giridih, in the year 2012 - 13 instructions were issued by the Engineer-in-Chief with regard to work program relating to relocation of Tube Well and its tender process vide letter issued under Memo no. 1042, dated 07.09.2012 and 1124 dated 21.09.2012 respectively. Accordingly, on 10.10.2012, tender was floated to carry over the ensuing relocation of Tube Well under NRDWP Scheme 2012 - 13 prior to sanction of the Scheme in light of target for installation of Tube Well which was earmarked and fixed under the Drinking Water and Sanitation Circle, Dhanbad by the Superintending Engineer. The Scheme of relocation of Tube Well under NRDWP (2012 - 13) was sanctioned for the whole State of Jharkhand for Rs. 10706.61627 Lac. out of which Rs. 358.19605 Lac was earmarked for Giridih Division vide sanction order no. 140, dated 01.12.2012. After issuance of Sanction Order of the Scheme, work orders were issued in favour of different contractors inclusive of M/s. Sayeed Akhtar also at a rate above to the extent of 4.5% than the scheduled rate vide work order no. 2304, dated 22.12.2012 with a condition to complete the work within sanctioned financial limits and no option or liberty was given to the petitioner to alter the target. With regard to sanction order as contained in order no. 140, dated 01.12.2012, a Corrigendum being Sanction No. 158, dated 17.01.2017 was issued whereby expenditure under central share was exclusively earmarked for sustainability of source without altering the total sanctioned amount.