Permod Kohli, J. - (1.) ALL those petitions involve common questions of law and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) PETITIONERS herein are in -charge Supervisors and Panchayat Sevaks, posted in various Panchayats/Blocks in Singhbhum West, Chaibasa. They are aggrieved of the letter dated 04th of February, 2004 issued by respondent no. 5, ordering recovery from the petitioners on account of alleged loss caused to the State exchequer due to dereliction of duty by them. Validity of the order is challenged, inter alia, on the grounds: - (i) Order suffers from non -observance of principles of natural justice. (ii) Order has been passed in most arbitrary and mala fide manner. (iii). Petitioners being officials at the lower rung of the organization/department had/have no role in disbursement of the payments for the works, in question, and cannot be made liable for any recovery. The facts leadings to the filing of the present petitions are briefly noticed, hereinafter.
(3.) IN a District level meeting relating to the development of the district held on 08th of May, 1999 under the Deputy Development Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, a decision was taken to provide water to all the villages/blocks and for this purpose, it was decided to repair all existing 'Chapakal' (Tube wells) and to establish new tube wells as per the requirements in all villages etc, These works were to be executed under Jawahar Rozgar Yojna. All the Block Development Officers were directed to execute all the works without any delay. This decision was followed by a letter dated 18th of April, 2000 from the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa to all the Block Development Officers to execute the works for repair and installation of Tube wells before the commencement of summer season. It was" also communicated that at least one source of water should be available in a village and in a heavily populated village two sources of water must be available. It was further mentioned that the work should be completed by the month of May. B.D.O., concerned initiated the process for repair of the existing tube wells and for installation of new tube wells. Tenders were invited from the contractors and as many as five contractors submitted their tenders. The Committee of five Officers headed by the B.D.O. was constituted and on consideration of tenders, work for repair and new tube wells was allotted to M/s. Hriday Constructions, Chaibasa under Order No. 126 A Dated 27th of April, 2000. A copy of this order was also endorsed to the Panchayat Sevak concerned for information. It is alleged that after completion of the work by the Contractor, the bills submitted by it were to be placed before the Gram Sabha and after taking its approval, proper certificates were to be given by the local Mankis/Mundas/Villagers and only after verification of the works executed by the Contractor, the amount of the approved bills was required to be paid to the Contractor through Cheques. It is further alleged that all works allotted to the contractors were executed as per the direction of respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and the petitioners, who were either Panchayat Sevaks or Supervisors, had no role to play except to supervise the works. Petitioners have also indicated the names of the works executed and the amounts spent on each work. It is further alleged that petitioners supervised all the works executed by the Contractor and bills for works executed were duly placed and approved by the Gram Sabha and on verification certificates were granted by the local Mankis/Mundas/Villagers before the payment of the bills to the contractor. It is alleged that all the works were executed during the period 2000 -01 and there was no complaint of any kind from any quarter. It is further stated that it was only in the year 2002 that enquiries were made and reports were sought regarding the execution of the works from the concerned Panchayat Sevaks/Supervisors. It is also mentioned that some of the Panchayat Sevaks/Supervisors had been transferred in the meanwhile and new incumbents were asked to submit their reports. One of the communications dated 16th of January, 2002, whereby petitioners were asked to submit the report, has been placed as Annexure -5. Some of the petitioners submitted the reports and similarly those officers, who were posted in their places, also submitted their respective reports in respect to the works executed. It is stated that without seeking any explanation and without holding any enquiry, impugned letters have been issued for recovery from the petitioners. This recovery is allegedly on account of wrong payments made for repair. Petitioners have been asked to pay the amounts within four days, failing which, action shall be initiated against them. These recovery letters have been issued by the Block Development Officer, Goilkera. Similar communications dated 04th of February, 2002 have been issued in all the cases. Respondent -State has justified the recovery on the grounds that the works were not executed in accordance with the provisions of 'Jawhar Rojgar Yojna'. It has been mentioned in the reply that certain irregularities said to be committed in execution of the works during 2000 -01, 2001 -02, appeared in newspapers alleging misuse of funds of J.G.S.Y. (Jawahar Gramin Sarak Yojna) by certain Block functionaries of the Sonuwa Block. The Deputy Commissioner vide his letter dated 11th of October, 2002 issued instructions and the Deputy Development Commissioner, West Singhbhum by his letter dated 26th of February, 2003 submitted reports of the irregularities and vide Memo No. 1964/GO dated 09th of June, 2003, instructions were issued to recover the public money from the faulty employees and, on their failure, coercive action was directed to be initiated. It is further stated that the issue of misuse of funds was brought to the notice of the High Court in W.P. (PIL) No. 1422 of 2003. The Hon'ble High Court asked the progress of the recovery of the case and an P.I.R. was lodged in Police Station, which was registered as Case No. 5 of 2004 dated 18th of January, 2004. It is alleged that B.D.O., Goilkera, namely, John George Tirkey floated guidelines of J.G.S.Y. Various irregularities said to be committed in execution of the works as pointed in the report of the Technical Experts has been placed alongwith the reply. It is further stated that the enquiry was held by the District Regional Development Authority and report was submitted vide letter No. 54 (B) dated 11th of March, 2004. On the basis of the aforesaid enquiry report, recovery has been ordered. One of the copies of the report has been placed on record at Page 72 (Annexure -G), in W.P. (S) No. 939 of 2004.;