Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, Feb 2: High Court has quashed the penalty notice issued by the Chief Operating Officer Himayat Mission Management Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Grameen Kaushalya Yojana (DDU-GKY) Jammu and Kashmir Unit by observing that an authority competent to impose major penalty of termination of contract cannot exercise such power without giving due hearing to the affecting party.
The petitioner-company M/s ICA Edu Skills Pvt. Ltd was sanctioned a project under the DDU-GKY Scheme for skilling of 2984 candidates, to be selected by the petitioner in all the districts across the J&K with focus on remote/backward areas for the Trade of Accounts Assistant using Tally, Hospitality Assistant and Departmental Manager vide sanction order No.34-HMMU of 2018 dated 11.07.2018. The total cost of the project was Rs.28.52 cr and the tenure of the project was three years, which, however, was extended upto 9th October, 2022.
During the project a notice under caption “Notice of Imposition of major Penalty” came to be issued by the Chief Operating Officer Himayat Mission Management on September 2022 under Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) of the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Grameen Kaushalya Yojana (DDU-GKY), whereby project of the petitioner was terminated with immediate effect and penalty to the tune of Rs.2.85 cr imposed on it on the ground of some anonymous complaint received against the petitioner-Company and alleged recovery of certain incriminating material during surprise visit.
Justice Moksha Kazmi while quashing the notice recorded that the respondent-Government has failed to follow the procedure laid down in SOP, as such, has committed procedural irregularities.
Justice Kazmi said the impugned notice is not only stigmatic without following principles of natural justice but has also left the petitioner-Company without any alternative remedy of filing an appeal as reflected in the impugned order. “In view of this the impugned order dated 20.09.2022 is quashed. However, the respondents are at liberty to initiate any action strictly in accordance with law, SOP and guidelines laid down in this regard from time to time”, the Court concluded.
The role and responsibilities of both the petitioner-Company and the Chief Operating Officer court said, are supposed to be discharged strictly in accordance with the procedures/notifications issued under the DDU-GKY Guidelines framed by the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.
“All the procedures, roles and responsibilities of State Rural Livelihood Mission (SRLM) and the Project Implementing Agency (PIA), right from sanction of the project till completion of the same are clearly laid down in the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) read with such other notification that may be issued by the Commissioner Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Government of J&K from time to time”, read the judgment.
Court said that from the perusal of the SOPs of scheme, it is quite clear that the petitioner-Company has been prejudiced by the action of the respondent-authority as the two courses referred to in the SOP and guidelines on the basis whereof the respondents have possibly issued the impugned notice do not justify the action taken by them in any way.
“If the impugned order is taken to be the outcome of the inspection preceded by a show cause notice, then the petitioner-Company ought to have been heard which admittedly has not been done”, court said.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
