1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 457(SS) of 2003 (Old No. 36377 of 2000) Ranjeet Singh Rana S/o Late Shri M.S.Rana Assistant Basic Shikhsa Adhikari, Block Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal ………………. Petitioner Versus 1. District Magistrate Pauri Garhwal 2. Basic Shiksha Adhikari Pauri Garhwal 3. Account Officer Basic Shiksha Pauri District Pauri Garhwal ………..Respondents And Writ Petition No. 458(SS) of 2001 (Old No. 36376 of 2000) Smt. Tara Rana 2 W/o Shri Laxman Singh Rana At present working as Head Mistress Kanya Junior High School Margadna Block Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal ………………. Petitioner Versus 1. District Magistrate Pauri Garhwal 2. Basic Shiksha Adhikari Pauri Garhwal 3. Account Officer Basic Shiksha Pauri District Pauri Garhwal ………..Respondents Shri Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri G.D.Joshi, Advocate, present for the writ petitioners. Shri Subhash Upadhyay, Brief Holder, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. (2) Both of these writ petitions are directed against order dated 4th of July 2000, passed by District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal, whereby said 3 authority has directed that recovery of ` 13,600, from writ petitioner Ranjit Singh Rana (the then Assistant Basic Education Officer) and ` 54,400/- from writ petitioner Tara Rana (the then Head Mistress of the School) be made from their salaries. (3) Brief facts of the case are that in village Margadna within the limits of Gram Sabha Dobh in block Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal a school named “Kanya Junior High School” was established in the year 1993-94. One Durga Devi Khanduri donated her land for construction of building of the school where after and amount of ` 1,80,000/- was sanctioned by the State Government. Said amount was to be withdrawn from the joint account of Village Pradhan and the Head Mistress as per the needs for the construction. The first installment of ` 60,000/- was withdrawn for the construction by the school building by the concerned village Pradhan and Head Mistress. Thereafter, considering the progress of the construction of 29.04.1994, as per th resolution of Shiksha Samiti of Gram Sabha Dobh, further construction work were carried out 4 through the contractor Shri Ghanshyam Singh and ` 40,000/- were drawn for the purpose on 26.10.1994. Thereafter, for further construction ` 20,000/- on 19.11.1994, and ` 55,000/- on 14.01.1995, were drawn by village Pradhan and Head Mistress and paid to the contractor. The construction of the building got went on till in December 1996. On 03.10.1997 a local Member of Legislative Assembly, after inspection of school building, wrote for further grants for the construction. In October 1997, Block Development Officer Pauri directed the Junior Engineer of Rural Engineering Services Pauri to get completed the work. On 16.03.1999, Shiksha Samiti of Gram Sabha Dobh verified that construction work of ` 1,79,000/- has been done, and that further ` 1,50,000 would be required for remaining work. On 31.03.1999, Chief Development Officer, Pauri Garhwal gave a notice, on the complainant of Durga Devi Khanduri, as to why 45 percent of the amount spent on the construction be not recovered from the Head Mistress Tara Rana (writ petitioner), and 10 percent of ` 1,80,000/- be not recovered from Ranjit Singh Rana Assistant Basic Education 5 Officer (writ petitioner). Both of them submitted their replies in response to the notice received from the Chief Development Officer. They pleaded that they (writ petitioners) are not the technical experts. They also denied for the quality of the construction was poor. They further pleaded that no rule was violated by them in the construction activities. Both of them pleaded that in the hills while making building with boulders, slippery soil (GARA) is used instead cement, and the building has sustained even the earth quakes which shook the area in the intervening period. However, the respondent no.1 was not satisfied with the replies and directed that the recovery of ` 54,400/- and ` 13,600/- be made from the writ petitioner Tara Rana and writ petitioner Ranjit Singh Rana, respectively. Hence this petition. (4) On behalf of the respondents it is pleaded that the quality of the construction was of low standard. (5) Admittedly, it is not a case of embezzlement. It is also not disputed that neither writ petitioner Tara Rana, nor the writ petitioner Ranjit Singh 6 Rana is an technical expert of construction. It has come on the record that the construction activities was being supervised by the Junior Engineer of Rural Engineering Services, and the Block Development Officer. In the circumstances, this court is at loss as to how the respondent no.1 has held the writ petitioners liable for the sub standard quality of construction done by the contractor or the construction agency. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that without giving copy of enquiry report to the writ petitioners, the impugned order is passed which is, against the principles of natural justice. The impugned order shows that it was based on the report dated 27.03.2000, made by District Development Officer and Assistant Engineer of Rural Engineering Services and said report was not served on the petitioners. As such, impugned order being arbitrary, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (6) Therefore, both these writ petitions deserve to be allowed. The writ petitions are allowed and impugned order 4th of July 2000 passed by District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal, directing to make 7 recovery of ` 54,400/- from writ petitioner Tara Rana (the then Head Mistress of the School)and ` 13,600, from writ petitioner Ranjit Singh Rana (the then Assistant Basic Education Officer) Pauri Garhwal, is hereby quashed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.25.07.2011 NP