HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 6634 of 2023 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 4. In view of order being passed, notices to opposite parties no.5 & 6 stand dispensed with. 2. This petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 10.08.2023 , whereby petitioner's services as a contractual Rojgar Sewak under the MGNREGA Scheme has been terminated by the District Magistrate concerned. 3. In pursuance of directions issued earlier, counter affidavit has been filed by opposite parties 1 to 5 in which in paragraphs 13, 16 & 18, it has been specifically stated that a complaint was made by one Mr. Asha Ram Dubey against alleged irregularities with regard to transfer of wage funds to the Housing beneficiaries. The said aspect was investigated into whereafter a show cause notice was issued to petitioner to which he submitted a reply whereafter his explanation not being found satisfactory, order dated 05.04.2023 was passed by Chief Development Officer issuing recovery order & strict warning to petitioner. 4. Paragraph 18 of counter affidavit indicates that subsequently instructions were given to the District Panchayatraj Officer by the District Magistrate on 20.12.2022 for taking action against Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rakesh Pathak, Vijay Pathak Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh Radhey Shyam .....Petitioner(s) District Programme Co-Ordinator/ Distt. Magistrate Sultanpur And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) responsible persons whereafter the matter was investigated by the Deputy Commissioner, Labour & Employment, Sultanpur who submitted his report regarding misuse of funds and therefore finding petitioner guilty of financial irregularities, a clarification was sought from him vide order dated 06.07.2023 which was replied to by him whereafter the impugned order has been passed. 5. It is therefore quite evident that opposite parties have admitted in their counter affidavit that the initial order of recovery as well as warning issued to petitioner vide order dated 05.04.2023 and impugned order dated 10.08.2023 pertained to the same complaint made against him. 6. Learned State Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has submitted that although initial order had been passed by the Chief Development Officer but the District Magistrate being a higher authority thereafter in light of reports submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Labour & Employment found it appropriate to issue a fresh show cause notice to petitioner on 06.07.2023 whereafter the impugned order has been passed. It is therefore submitted that the District Magistrate being the controller of Exchequer of the District concerned, was very well within his rights to have passed the impugned order, particularly since petitioner was only a contractual employee and there is specific condition in his appointment letter that his services may be terminated at any given time. It is submitted that exercising powers under the appointment letter, petitioner's services have been dispensed with on account of being found guilty of charges levelled against him. 7. Learned for petitioner however in rebuttal has submitted that it is in fact the Chief Development Officer who is the appointing authority of petitioner as would be evident from the appointment letter dated 23.06.2010 and therefore once the competent authority has already taken a decision, it did not lie within the powers of a higher authority to have passed the impugned order. 8. A perusal of material on record corroborates the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner that it is in fact the Chief WRIA No. 6634 of 2023 2 Development Officer who is the appointing authority of the petitioner. It has been admitted that since petitioner's services were only contractual in nature, there are no Service Regulations or Rules governing their services which in fact are governed by their contract of appointment. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the opposite parties had taken cognizance of complaint made against petitioner and had passed the order dated 05.04.2023 after calling for an explanation and considering the same, the officials became functus officio and did not derive any power under any Statute or Regulation or even Service Rules to issue a second punishment order with regard to the same charges. Passing of a second punishment order with regard to same allegations and complaint amounts to double jeopardy. 10. In case concerned officials were of the opinion that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him, they could have refused to renew the contract of service of petitioner instead of passing the impugned order which does not find support of law. 11. In view of aforesaid, the impugned order dated 10.08.2023 passed by District Programme Coordinator/District Magistrate, Sultanpur, opposite party no.3 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in nature of Certiorari. Petitioner shall be reinstated on his post in case his contract period still survives. 12. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. December 8, 2025 AKS WRIA No. 6634 of 2023 3 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench