JUDGMENT
Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. The petitioner had challenged the order as contained in letter No. 1208 (Eastt) dated 30.12.1996, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau addressed to District Welfare Officer, Palamau, whereby the District Welfare Officer was directed to relieve the petitioner to join the Residential High School, Garu as he was an employee of the said school. It was further directed that the show cause notice also be issued asking explanation from the petitioner regarding serious financial irregularities and also to make necessary correction in his service book in consultation with the District Accounts Officer to ascertain the amount which was paid in excess to the petitioner and action be taken against this petitioner for realization of the amount paid in excess to him. The aforesaid letter had been annexed as Annexure-5 to the present writ application.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a clerk in the Welfare cadre in the Department of Welfare at Garu Residential High School in the district of Palamau. The appointment letter has not been annexed with the present writ application by the petitioner. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner joined in the office of District Welfare Department, Palamau on 28.2.1984 and thereafter on 13.3.1984 he was relieved by the District Welfare Officer to join Garu Residential High School where he joined on 5.3.1984. It is further stated that he passed Hindi noting and drafting examination on 15-4.1984 and the Final Accounts Examination on 10.9.1993.
3. Subsequently on 19.8.1992 by order of Dy. Director (Welfare) South Chot-tanagpur, Division Ranchi i.e. Respondent No. 2 the petitioner was relieved from Garu Residential High School to join in the office of District Welfare Officer, Gumla. However, on representation made by the petitioner he was transferred and posted in the office of District Welfare Officer, Palamau as per the order as contained in Annexure-1 to the present writ application. Thereafter, by order dated 19.5.1994 as contained in Annexure-2 the petitioner is said to have been granted Junior Selection Grade with effect from 1.4.1993 in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 and then by issuance of Annexure-3 under the signature of Dy. Director (Welfare) South Chotanagpur Division, i.e. Respondent No. 2, the order dated 19.5.1994 (Annexure-2) the date of promotion of the petitioner in the pay scale of Junior Selection Grade with effect from 1.4.1993 was modified by correcting the said date to be effective from 1.4.1992 and he was further granted Senior Selection Grade with effect from 1.4.1995 in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600. The said order has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the present writ application.
4. It appears that by issuance of An-nexure-5 dated 31.12.1996 the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau after considering the fact.
(i) that the petitioner was Initially appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 425-605 to the post of Assistant in the Residential School Garu on 28.3.1984.
(ii) that as per the service book the petitioner was wrongly granted in the pay scale of Rs. 580-860 to the post of accountant-cum-clerk and thereafter his pay fixed In the revised scale of Rs. 1200-1800 on 1.1.1986 was illegal.
(iii) that petitioner was wrongly given Senior Selection Grade in the scale of Rs. 1400-2600 against the Government order and. circular.
(iv) that according to the Government rules, there should be a gap in between first promotion and second promotion.
(v) that the petitioner was wrongly given Senior Selection grade only within a period of three years whereas he was entitled to first promotion with effect from 10.10.1993 and thereafter he may have been entitled to the second promotion after completion of five years with effect from 10.10.1998 and it appears that serious financial Irregularities have been committed in giving promotion to the petitioner and fixing his pay scale and therefore, direction was made to the District Welfare Officer, Palamu.
(A) To relieve the petitioner who joined at the Residential High School, Garu as he was an employee of the said very school.
(B) Notice to the show cause be issued to the petitioner asking for explanation for serious financial irregularities.
(C) In consultation with the District Accounts Officer the fixation of Pay of the petitioner be corrected and action be taken for realisation of the amount paid to the petitioner in excess towards his salary.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau had no jurisdiction at all to pass an order and to issue the letter as contained in Annexure-5 because the service of the petitioner is not under the control of the Deputy Commissioner. In this regard it is submitted that the petitioner belonged to cadre of Welfare Department of which the controlling authority is Director, Welfare and he does not belong to the col-lectorate cadre of which the Deputy Commissioner is the Controlling Authority and therefore, the issuance of Annexure-5 by the Deputy Commissioner is absolutely without jurisdiction and illegal.
6. The learned counsel for. the respondents by filing he counter affidavit and controverting the statements made by the petitioner in the writ application has submitted that the office of the District Welfare Officer is itself under the control and supervision of the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau and since the District Welfare Officer is himself under the Control of the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner, who is working under the control and supervision of the District Welfare Office, was not under the control of the Deputy Commissioner and therefore, the stand of the petitioner in this regard is misleading and wrong. It had been specifically stated in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents No. 4 and 5 that the District Welfare Officer i.e. Respondent No. 5 runs under direct control and supervision of the respondent No. 4 i.e. Deputy Commissioner. Palamu who is fully competent to transfer Class III and IV officials any where under his jurisdiction. It has further been stated that if the respondent No. 5 works under the control of respondent No. 4 then those who are working under the Respondent No. 4 are also under the control of the respondent No. 4 i.e. Deputy Commissioner. In paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit it has further been stated that the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau being the controlling and supervising authority of the District Welfare Officer was fully competent to examine or enquire into any irregularities committed in the office of the respondent No, 5 te. District Welfare Officer. It has been stated that there has been irregularities in granting promotion to the petitioner to the higher scale and in fixing his salary and therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, as contained in Annexure-6 was perfectly valid and justified.
7. The Statements made in the counter affidavit have not been controverted by the petitioner by filing any rejoinder thereto. It is not the case of the petitioner that either the promotion given to him was valid or that promotion to Junior Selection Grade and Senior Selection Grade were rightly given and his pay to higher scale was rightly fixed. Rather case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4, the Deputy Commissioner, had no jurisdiction to issue Annexure-5 on the ground that he was not his controlling or supervising authority.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case respective case of the parties, Statements made in the writ application as well as in the counter affidavit, I am of the view that when it was found by the Deputy Commissioner. Palamau, Respondent No. 4 that the petitioner was wrongly given promotion to the Junior Selection Grade with effect from the date from which he was not entitled to and consequently his fixation of pay on the higher scale was found to be wrong and against the Government orders and therefore, he was perfectly justified in rectifying and correcting the mistake and in issuing the letter dated 30.12.1996 as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application, I find no illegality in action of the respondent No. 4 and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for in the writ application. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed and interim order dated on 2.9.1997 is hereby vacated. Writ dismissed.