2025:JHHC:14736 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 1275 of 2019 --------- Radhika Raman, aged 56 years, son of Late Basuki Nath, resident of Bela Bagan, Deoghar, PO. Dabar Gram, P.S. and District Deoghar. ......Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi. 2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department (Rural Works Affairs) having office at Dhurwa, P.Ο. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi. 3. Joint Secretary, Rural Development Department (Rural Works Affairs) having office at Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi. 4. Under Secretary, Rural Development Department (Rural Works Affairs) having office at Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi. 5. Superintending Engineer, Rural Development Department (Rural Works Affairs), Rural Works Circle, Dumka, P.O. and P.S. Dumka, District Dumka. 6. Executive Engineer, Rural Development Department (Rural Works Affairs), Rural Works Division, Dumka, P.O. and P.S. Dumka, District Dumka 7. Deputy Development Commissioner, Godda, P.O. P.S. Godda, District Godda 8. Executive Engineer, Road Construction Division, Deoghar, P.O. and P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar. .....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Shankar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Priyadarshi, G.P-VI --------- 11/Dated:-06.05.2025 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The instant writ application was initially preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs: (i) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/ order(s) /direction(s) for quashing of Memo No.303, dated 28.01.2019 (Annexure-17) issued by Joint 2025:JHHC:14736 2 Secretary to the Government, addressed to Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Deoghar (Respondent no.8) whereby and where under taking reference of letter No. 553 dated 13.02.2018, the decision for recovery of Rs.7,81,167/- has been affirmed by the concerned respondent. (ii) An appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/Direction(s) for quashing of Memo No. 553 dated 13.02.2018 (Annexure-11) issued by the Under Secretary to the Government to Executive Engineer (Respondent No. 6) whereby and where under an order for recovery of loss caused to the Government Revenue has been passed against the petitioner. (iii) For issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing of letter No.1142 dated 26.07.2018 (Annexure-15) issued by Executive Engineer, Rural Development Department (Respondent No.6) Dumka to the Deputy Commissioner, Godda, whereby and where under it has been observed and held that an amount of Rs.7,81,167/- is sought to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner in twelve equal installment. (iv) The petitioner further prays that during the pendency of the writ petition, impugned orders dated 28.01.2019 (Annexure-17), 13.02.2018 (Annexure-11) and letter dated 26.07.2018 (Annexure-15) may be ordered to be stayed. 3. Subsequently, the petitioner had filed an interlocutory application being I.A. No.4959 of 2020 seeking amendment to the main writ application by inserting the prayer for refund of deducted amount of Rs.7,81,167/- from the salary of the petitioner. The said I.A. was allowed without any opposition and amended writ application has been filed incorporating the amended prayer. 4. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in Rural Engineering Organization in the year 1987-88 in the district of Ranchi. While the petitioner was working at Giridih, he was transferred vide order dated 15.12.2012 from Giridih to Works Department, Dumka. The petitioner joined the office at Dumka on 24.12.2012. 5. The case of the petitioner is that at the time of joining 2025:JHHC:14736 3 at Dumka, he made a report to the superior authority while taking charge on 02.01.2013 that out of 173 Bitumen drums, 134 had leaked and spread over on the ground and rest of the drums are in badly leaked position. Thereafter, the petitioner was again transferred from Dumka office to the office of Deputy Commissioner, Godda vide order dated 29.06.2016 and vide order dated 18.07.2016, he was directed to handover the charge to one Junior Engineer named Bihari Tiwari and pursuant thereto; he handed-over the entire charge to Bihari Tiwari, who after taking over the charge, stated that the drums containing Bitumen were damaged and in leaking condition. 6. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer, Works Division, Dumka vide letter dated 19.12.2016 issued a direction for carrying out physical verification of the godown which was under the supervision of Road Construction Department, Road Division, Dumka No.1. The fact further reveals that an enquiry was conducted and it was found that the fact of leaking of the drums and Bitumen mixed with mud was found which was not for use; the details of which is mentioned in para 19 of the amended writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner was again transferred from Godda to Deoghar. 7. All of a sudden, to the utter shock of the petitioner, the Under Secretary to the Government vide letter dated 12.02.2018, gave a finding that 183 drums of Bitumen were kept in the 2025:JHHC:14736 4 premises in which mud and soil was mixed and the same was not in usable condition and thus directed to recover the loss caused from the petitioner as the wastage of Bitumen was a loss caused to the Government revenue. The petitioner sent a reply vide its letter dated 17.05.2018 to the query/direction of the Under Secretary’s letter dated 12.02.2018 that the petitioner joined on the post at the place on 02.01.2013 and the Bitumen was in that very condition for which he had also made an information while taking charge at Dumka vide his joining letter dated 24.12.2012. Pursuant to the letter of the petitioner dated 17.05.2018 addressed to the Superintendent Engineer, the 4th Respondent vide Memo No.03.07.2018 addressed to the Superintendent Engineer called for a report about the entire episode. Subsequent thereto; the Executive Engineer, Rural Development, Works Division, Dumka sent a detailed report vide letter dated 26.09.2018 answering all the queries. However, prior to sending the detail report; the said authority had also issued letter to the Deputy Commissioner requesting Order of Recovery of Rs. 7,81,167/- from the Petitioner vide letter dated 26.07.2018. 8. The specific case of the petitioner is that before issuance of the order for recovering the amount, on the one hand; no show cause was asked from the petitioner and on the other hand, the physical verification report itself clarifies that the Bitumen mixed with mud and in a damaged condition was lying at 2025:JHHC:14736 5 the place since last 15 years. Further, while the petitioner was taking charge at that place, in the charge-taking report itself, he has indicated about the damaged Bitumen with mud which was useless for work. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions: (i) The order of recovery has been passed without issuing any show-cause notice to the petitioner, inasmuch as, as per the order itself (Annexure-11) it is clear that a decision for recovery has already been taken and the file was put up before superior authority and vide Annexure-15 recovery order has been made. However, in between no show-cause notice, whatsoever, was given to the petitioner. (ii) He further referred to Annexure-A to the counter affidavit which is the physical verification / enquiry report which was conducted pursuant to issuance of Annexure-11 & 15 and as per the enquiry report the allegation made against the petitioner is falsified by the finding in the report. (iii) Ld. Counsel contended that on the ground of principle of natural justice itself that no show cause notice has been given to the petitioner before the order of recovery was issued coupled with the fact finding report of the physical verification team; the impugned orders (Annexure-11, 15 and 17), deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents oppose the prayer of the petitioner for refund of recovered amount and relied upon 2025:JHHC:14736 6 the counter affidavit especially, para nos. 11, 12, 13, 18 and 20. For brevity, the same is extracted hereinbelow: “11. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the Superintending Engineer, Dumka has constituted a team of five Engineers headed by EE, RDD (RWA), Sahebganj to examine the condition of the bitumen. The said committee so constituted has given a finding that 183 drums of bitumen have been found, however, most of them have been found in littered position and there remained nearly 60% bitumen getting mixed with soil only. The enquiry report further states that the bitumen which so leaked has been lifted from the soil and placed back in the drums as a result of which soil and bitumen have got mixed up. 12. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the enquiry report further reveals that the quantity of bitumen of which the petitioner has taken charge has not been found to intact. It is further found that despite the leaked bitumen having been placed back in the drums, the same does to tally with the quantity of bitumen of which the petitioner taken charge. On such charges, the petitioner has been found guilty of the charge of having caused loss to the government to the tune of Rs. 7,81,167/-. 13. That it is humbly stated and submitted that after having quantified the loss caused by the petitioner, the figure of Rs. 7,81,167/- has been arrived at and accordingly an order has been passed for recovering the said amount from the salary of the petitioner in 12 equal installments. 18. That with regard to the statement made in paragraphs- 09 and 10 of the instant Writ application filed by the petitioner under reply it is humbly stated and submitted that the enquiry report so submitted by a committee of five Engineers takes into consideration the quantity of bitumen of which the petitioner has taken charge and the condition of the bitumen has been found unserviceable the time of his at handing over charge. 20. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph- 16 of the instant writ application filed by the petitioner under reply it is humbly stated and submitted that 183 drums of bitumen was under the charge of the petitioner and hence he cannot escape from the liability for leakage of the said bitumen. The charge taken report of the petition explicitly reveals that 183 drums of bitumen were in packed condition i.e. sealed condition. Whereas the enquiry report of these drums found that these drums were not in intact position and the leaked bitumen were placed back into the drum. Consequently for this act, the petitioner was found responsible and finally the enquiry committee fixed a liability of Rs. 7,81,167/- i.e. recovery amount from the petitioner for the loss caused to the government.” 2025:JHHC:14736 7 11. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after going through the documents available on record especially, the physical verification report which was conducted by the respondent authorities, it appears that the said Bitumen mixed with mud was lying at the place since last 15 years from the date of verification i.e., 24.07.2017. For brevity, the same is extracted herein below: “ रिसकपुर गोदाम के िबटुमेन का भौितक स᭜यापन का ᮧितवेदन। अधीᭃण अिभयंता, ᮕा०िव०िव० (ᮕा०का०मा०) कायᭅ अंचल, दुमका के ᭄ापांक 328 ᳰदनांद 25.5.17 के िनदᱷश के आलोक मᱶ कायᭅ ᮧमंडल दुमका के रिसकपुर ि᭭थत गोदाम मᱶ रखे ᱟए िबटुमेन का भौितक स᭜यापन सभी िनधाᭅᳯरत सद᭭यᲂ के साथ ᳰदनांक 31.5.17 को ᳰकया गया, िजसका िववरण िन᳜ ᮧकार है । रिसकपुर गोदाम को देखने से ᮧतीत होता है ᳰक यहाँ कई दसक से िबटुमेन रखा जाता है। गोदाम िब᭨कुल खुला जगह पर है, जहाँ लोगᲂ एवं पशुᲐ का आना जाना बेरोकटोक हो सकता है। गोदाम मᱶ अलकतरे का ᮟम वेतरतीव ढंग से रखा ᱟआ पाया गया। गोदाम मᱶ रखे ᮟम का फोटो 5 ᮧित मᱶ संलᲨ है। गोदाम ि᭭थत ᭭टॉक रिज᭭टर के अवलोकन से ᭭प᳥ ᱟआ है ᳰक ये अलकतरा िपछले 15 वषᭅ पूवᭅ से ही ᭭टॉक मᱶ आ रहा है, िजसे माचᭅ 2007 तक िविभ᳖ कायᲃ के िलए ᮧमंडल के आदेश से िनगᭅत करते करते 27.1417 MT (173 Drum) बच गया जो िपछले 10 वषᭅ से उसी अव᭭था मᱶ गोदाम मे पड़ा ᱟआ है, तथा अलकतरा धीरे धीरे हाित होता गया। ᮰ी ᳰदलीप कुमार वणᭅवाल त᭜कालीन कनीय अिभयंता के अविध मᱶ जून 2007 मᱶ ᭭टॉक लेखा मᱶ वᳶणत है ᳰक 173 Drum मᱶ से 134 Drum लोकेज अव᭭था मᱶ है तथा जमीन पर फैल रहा है। ᳰफर एक साल के बाद जून 2008 के लेखा मᱶ उ᭨लेख है ᳰक शेष बचे 39 ᮟम भी लीक कर रह है तथा जमीन मᱶ फै ल रहा है। इसका स᭜यापन त᭜कालीन सहायक अिभयंता ᳇ारा भी ᳰकया गया है। इसी बह रहे अलकतरा का ᮧभार जून 2012 मᱶ ᮰ी डी के वनᭅवाल ने ᮰ी शंकर मुरारी, कनीय अिभयंता को सᲅपा तथा इसी जनीन पर फै ल रहे तथा लीके ज अलकतरा ᮟम को ᮰ी रािधका रमण, कनीय अिभयंता ने जनवरी 2013 मᱶ ᮧभार मᱶ ᮕहण ᳰकया। एक पथ के ᭭थल लेखा से भी ᮰ी रािधका रमण कनीय अिभयंता को 10 ᮟम लीकेज वाला िबटुमेन (लेखा मᱶ वᳶणत) जनवरी 2013 मᱶ िमला जो कु ल िमलाकर 183 ᮟम चाजᭅ मᱶ हो गया। ᭭टॉक लेखा मᱶ उ᭨लेख है ᳰक ᮰ी रािधका रमण, कनीय अिभयंता को कु ल 183 ᮟम अलकतरा मᱶ से 134 ᮟम जमीन मᱶ बहा ᱟआ अलकतरा िमला था तथा 49 ᮟम लीक वाला िबटुमेन िमला। सभी का स᭜यापन सहायक अिभयंता ᳇ारा ᳰकया गया है। जाँच दल ᳇ारा भौितक स᭜यापन मᱶ, गोदाम मᱶ पूरा 183 ᮟम उपल᭣ध पाया गया िजसमᱶ अिधकांश ᮟम जहाँ तहाँ िबखरे अव᭭था मᱶ पाया गया। अनुमानतः 60% िमटटी िमि᮰त अलकतरे कᳱ माᮢा कु ल िमलाकर हो सकता है। 10 ᮟाम छोड़कर शेष ᮟाम का उपरी भाग कटा-फटा िमला है। ᮟाम के नीचे भाग मᱶ कई वषᲄ से लीकेज रहने तथा नीचे का भाग सड़ने के कारण अिधकांश ᮟाम आंिशक ही भरा ᱟआ है। कुछ अ᭨क़तरा जमीन पर गमᱮ के कारण बह कर पसरा ᱟआ है। ऐसा लगता है जमीन मᱶ बह चुके अलकतरा को बचाने के खयाल से जमीन से उठाकर ᮟम मᱶ रखा गया है तथा कु छ िबटुमेन ᭭थल पर बहा ᱟआ अभी भी मौजूद है। इस कारण से अलकतरा मᱶ िमटटी िमि᮰त हो सकता है। ᭭थल पर उपल᭣ध ᮟम कᳱ ि᭭थित ऐसी नहᱭ है ᳰक उसे सही सही वजन ᳰकया जा सके । ” Emphasis Supplied 12. Thus, on the one hand; the Physical Verification Report itself clarifies that the Bitumen mixed with mud and in 2025:JHHC:14736 8 damaged condition was lying at the place since last 15 years. Further, it also reveals that while the petitioner was taking charge at that place, in the joining report/charge-taking report itself, he has indicated about the damaged Bitumen with mud which was useless for work, which is evident from Annexure- 2(A) of the writ application. However, without giving any weightage to the physical verification report of the respondents themselves and without issuing any show cause notice before passing an order of recovery, the petitioner has been saddled with a recovery of Rs.7,81,167/-. 13. There is a specific averment made in the writ petition at para 45 and 46 that pursuant to the enquiry report, no clarification was sought by the petitioner and the enquiry was made behind the back of the petitioner and no valid proceeding was ever initiated before slapping the petitioner with recovery amount. However, the said averment made under Para 45 and 46 has neither been denied nor been addressed in the counter affidavit. 14. The law is well settled that when any order which is prejudicial to the interest an employee and having civil consequences, the same has to be passed after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the employee by following principles of natural justice. In the instant case, no chit of paper has been produced by the respondents that before issuance of Annexure- 11 and/or Annexure-15, any proceeding for recovery was ever 2025:JHHC:14736 9 initiated. 15. Accordingly, the instant writ application deserves to be, and is, hereby allowed and consequently, Annexure-11, 15 and 15, are hereby, quashed and set aside. The amount which has been recovered from the salary of the petitioner be refunded to him forthwith but not beyond a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order; failing which the petitioner shall also be entitled for interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of recovery till the date of actual payment. 16. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) vikas/- A . F . R .