1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.3036 of 2018 ----- Kamlesh Sharma, S/o Late Ram Nandan Sharma, R/o village-Supra, P.O. & P.S.-Mau, District-Gaya (Bihar). … Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The MGNREGA Commissioner, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi. 3. The Special Executive Officer, MGNREGA, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi. 4. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Ranchi. 5. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Ranchi. 6. The Block Development Officer, Mandar, Ranchi. … Respondents. CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ritesh Kumar Pathak, Advocate : Mr. Jayesh Anand, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Divyam, A.C. to S.C.-IV …...... 08 /19.02.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner namely, Kamlesh Sharma was Junior Engineer at the relevant point of time. A communication was received that Mohan Munda the then Panchayat Sevak, Mandar Block, under the MGNREGA scheme had not dug well in the designated area and dug it in some other villages. An enquiry was conducted and the guilt of the Mohan Munda was established thus, it was decided that out of the total expenditure, from Mohan Munda 15%, from Rojgar Sevak 15%, from Junior Engineer 60% and rest 10% will be recovered from the mate. 3. From the entire records admittedly, it is clear that the petitioner was neither show caused nor was the part of the proceeding. While, deciding the misconduct of Mohan Munda a general order has been passed to recover the money from all concerned, including this petitioner. The petitioner was not accorded any opportunity of hearing. Further in violation of 2 principle of natural justice direction is given to recover 60% of the amount spent from the petitioner. 4. Since, there is a violation of the principle of natural justice as in a proceeding relating to Mohan Munda, direction was passed to recover 60% amount from the petitioner, this impugned order of recovery of 60% so far as this petitioner is concerned is hereby quashed and set aside. 5. This writ application is allowed. 6. If the respondents want to proceed against the petitioner, they are liberty to proceed in accordance with law and procedure laid down, after granting opportunity to the petitioner. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Arpit/