The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6412 of 2022 --------- Suraj Singh, S/o Dukhan Singh, R/o Vill- MAEL, P.O.- Matlaung, P.S.- Manika, Distt.- Latehar ... … Petitioner Versus 1. 2. The State of Jharkhand Secretary, Social Welfare Department, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 3. Deputy Secretary, Department of Schedule Tribe Caste, Minority and Backward Class, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, Distt.- Ranchi The Deputy Commissioner, P.O. + P.S. + Distt.- Latehar The Project Director, ITDA (Integrated Tribal Development Authority), P.O. + P.S. + Distt.- Latehar 4. 5. ... … Respondents --------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ---------
Legal Reasoning
dues he had approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5471 of 2019
Arguments
For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Ms. Sunita Kumari, AC to Sr. SC-II --------- : Mrs. Rita Kumari, Advocate 04/08.09.2023 Heard Mrs. Rita Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Sunita Kumari, learned AC to Sr. SC-II, for the respondents. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 03.11.2021 passed by the respondent no. 4 as well as Memo No. 2397 dated 12.08.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2 and the order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the respondent no. 5, by which, an amount of Rs. 7,60,990/- has been sought to be recovered from the admissible retiral dues of the petitioner. A further prayer has been made upon the concerned respondents to pay the retiral benefits admissible to the petitioner including dues of his salary for his working period 01.06.2005 to 30.12.2005 as well as subsistence allowance with interest from the date of the order of suspension of the petitioner till the date of his superannuation i.e., 31.10.2008. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 12.08.2022 has been passed behind the back of the petitioner and the same does not contain any basis for recovery of an amount of Rs. 7,60,990/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner. Learned counsel further -2- submits while referring to the counter affidavit that though the work with respect to Birsa Munda Aawas Yojna was of the financial year 2003-04 but the physical inquiry was conducted only on 21.07.2022 and the report also suggest that the houses were constructed and due to non-maintenance there has been certain damages which cannot be attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no departmental proceeding was conducted against the petitioner and in fact the petitioner was also deprived of the subsistence allowance during the period of his suspension. It has further been submitted that the impugned orders clearly indicates that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice and in fact the impugned order appears to be perverse as the reasons enumerated are not germane for the said purpose. Ms. Sunita Kumari, learned AC to Sr. SC-II, for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner was the Block Welfare Supervisor and, therefore, he was responsible for construction of houses under the Birsa Munda Aawas Yojna and since the houses were found to be incomplete or non- existent as per the report dated 21.07.2022 which entailed a loss of Rs. 7,60,990/- the same was recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner. The factual aspects of the case reveal that the petitioner was appointed as a Grade IV staff in Circle Office, Balumath in the Department of Welfare and in the year 1985 the petitioner was promoted as Supervisor of Kumandih Food Godown. Subsequent thereto the petitioner was posted as a Block Welfare Supervisor, Manika, Latehar on 02.03.2006. The petitioner however was suspended on the allegation that there were some latches in the construction of houses under the Birsa Munda Aawas Yojna. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of his services having been put to the headquarter the petitioner was not paid subsistence allowance during the period of suspension and ultimately, he had superannuated from service on 31.10.2008. During his suspension period no -3- departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and since the petitioner was deprived of payment of his retiral
Decision
which was disposed of vide order dated 17.12.2020 directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondent no. 4 herein who was to decide the same by a reasoned order within a period of twelve weeks. Consequent to the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 5471 of 2019, the petitioner had submitted a representation which was disposed of with a direction that a recoverable amount of Rs. 7,60,940/- was to be made from the petitioner out of his admissible retiral dues amounting to Rs. 10,15,267/-. It is the further case of the petitioner that his suspension was revoked from the date of his superannuation and the departmental proceeding against the petitioner was also dropped. It therefore, appears to be an admitted position that the departmental proceeding was dropped and the petitioner had superannuated from service on 31.10.2008 when he was under suspension. So far as the impugned order dated 12.08.2022 is concerned, the same does not indicate any reason and only on account of a purported report dated 21.07.2022 with respect to the construction made under the Birsa Munda Aawas Yojna an amount of Rs. 7,60,990/- was sought to have been recovered from the petitioner. In the counter affidavit a report of the Junior Engineer dated 21.07.2022 which in fact forms the basis of passing the impugned order dated 12.08.2022 has been brought on record from which it appears that though the construction was to be made in the financial year 2003-04 but a physical verification was conducted in September, 2022 and certain irregularities were found in the houses so constructed which would be apparent from the said report. On a perusal of the report dated 21.07.2022, it appears that in the case of many of the beneficiaries there has been construction but on account of non-maintenance of the same the houses have dilapidated. It is to be noticed that though the construction of -4- the houses was for the financial year 2003-04 but the physical verification seems to have been conducted after almost two decades and nothing has been stated in the counter affidavit as to whether there has been a prior inspection immediately upon completion of the period by which the houses were to be constructed. The petitioner has been implicated primarily on account of the fact that he was the Block Welfare Supervisor of Manika, Latehar under whose supervision the houses were constructed. As noted above, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and on his superannuation the proceeding was dropped and the suspension order was also revoked. The impugned order dated 12.08.2022 and the follow up order dated 09.09.2022 all seems to be based on the purported inspection report dated 21.07.2022. Moreover, the petitioner appears not to have been noticed to explain the circumstances as it appears that after almost 20 years the said inspection was conducted which led to some of the houses being found in a dilapidated stage and which attracted a recovery of Rs. 7,60,990/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner. In view of the above, therefore, the impugned order dated 12.08.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2 and the order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the respondent no. 5 are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent no. 4 to pass a fresh decision in accordance with law and in view of the findings noted above. The aforesaid exercise should be concluded within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This writ application stands disposed of. Alok/- (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)