Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for issuance of writ/direction, commanding upon the respondents to forthwith adjust the entire amount, which is shown against the petitioner as pending amount by way of temporary advance given to the petitioner, in terms of letter dated 23.12.2010 issued by respondent No. 4, and for issuance of direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 19.03.2012, whereby direction has been issued to recover a sum of Rs. 15,000/ - per month from the salary of the petitioner, on the ground that the temporary advance amount to the tune of Rs. 5,50,000/ - has not been adjusted by the petitioner, and for issuance of writ/direction, commanding upon the respondents to forthwith release the entire arrears along with penal interest.
(2.) Sans details, the brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that while the petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer in Deoghar, in the year 2008 -09, a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/ - was sanctioned by way of temporary advance for execution of some departmental work relating to repairing and other miscellaneous works. After disbursement of the said amount, the amount has been disbursed by way of cheques and hand receipts in favour of Sri Madhukar Kumar Sinha, a sum of Rs. 1,99,000/ - and in favour of Sri Mithilesh Kumar Singh, a sum of Rs. 3,26,000/ - and rest of the amount Rs. 25,000/ - was paid by the petitioner directly in connection with the said work and rest of Rs. 4,627/ - was lying pending prior to taking charge of the said post by the petitioner. After disbursement of the said amount, the concerned Junior Engineers have performed the entire works and thereafter, all the invoices, measurement entered in the measurement books etc. have been entered in the cash books of the month of July, 2008, September, 2008 and December, 2008, but, surprisingly said amount was not adjusted for the reasons best known to respondent No. 4. The petitioner time and again requested the authority concerned to adjust the entire amount forthwith. The petitioner submitted representations on 18.11.2010 before the Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand giving therein the details of the fact with a request to forthwith adjust the entire amount. The Executive Engineer also made a communication to the Deputy Secretary, whereby the entire aspect was discussed on the basis of a joint inquiry report submitted by the inquiry committee. The entire work for money was discussed which has already been performed and completed. The said statement also confirms the progress report submitted by the Road Division, Dumka. From perusal of the communication dated 23.12.2010, it is quite apparent that no Government money has been lying pending against the petitioner and the amount has already been disbursed. The respondent No. 4 issued a letter dated 16.03.2011, whereby a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/ - has been shown pending by way of temporary advance arrangement against the petitioner and petitioner has been directed to deposit the said amount. On receipt of the communication dated 16.03.2011, the petitioner submitted a protest specifically stating that no temporary advance amount is pending against her and again vide communication dated 15.06.2011 the petitioner was asked explanations to state reasons as to why the amount has not been adjusted. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause denying all the allegations clarifying her position. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 vide communication dated 22.07.2011 directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/ - within a week otherwise legal action would be taken against her. On receipt of the said communication, the petitioner submitted representations requesting therein to adjust the entire amount, but, to the utter dismay, order was passed on 19.03.2012 directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/ - for recovery of Rs. 15,000/ - per month from the salary. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.03.2012, left with no alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of her grievance.
(3.) Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that the petitioner has suffered due to arbitrary and illegal action of the respondent No. 4, since the amount has not been adjusted, which is quite apparent from the communication dated 23.12.2010 as contained in Memo No. 1884 addressed to the Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has become a victim and scapegoat, since no action has been taken against the predecessor in the office of respondent No. 4 by respondent No. 2 and thus the action of the respondent authority is highly arbitrary and illegal.;