HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 11087 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3 and Sri Aman Arya, learned counsel for complainant. 2. Considering the nature of order being passed, this Court does not invite counter affidavit from the respondents. 3. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 09.01.2024 passed by the respondent no.4-Lokpal MGNREGA, Kaushambi whereby he has imposed a recovery of Rs.5,69,244/- upon the petitioner. 4. Challenging the aforesaid award, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is a procedure contemplated under the guidelines appearing on page no.31 of the writ petition. It is submitted that without following the guidelines and without issuing any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondent no.4 has passed the impugned award on the basis of report which was not supplied to the petitioner. It is further submitted that impugned award is bereft of any reason inasmuch as the respondent no.4 has framed three issues, but he did not record any finding on three issues separately nor has assigned any reason. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned award cannot be sustained in law. 5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel would contend that elaborate reason has been given by the respondent no.4 in passing the impugned award which is evident from the impugned award and in such view of the fact, the impugned award has been passed in accordance with law. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gunjan Sharma, Namit Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Vandana Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of Up And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 6. Be that as it may, relevant extract of the impugned award is reproduced herein below:- "1. क्या ग्राम प्रधान, प्राम पंचायत सिचव द्वारा मनरेगा कायोर्ं की धनरािश का दुरुपयोग िकया गया है ? 2. क्या तकनीकी सहायक द्वारा अपने कतर्व्यों का िनवार्हन सही प्रकार न करते हुए स्वय को लाभ पहुँचाया है? 3 क्या प्राण प्रधान, ग्राम पंचायत सिचव ने अपने कतर्व्यों का िनवार्हन सही प्रकार से नहीं िकया है? िनष्कषर् / िनणर्ध प्रस्तुत पत्रावली और ग्राम प्रधान पंचायत सिचव द्वारा प्रस्तुत अिभलेखीय साध्य, िलिखत व्यान एवं स्वयं द्वारा की गई जाँच में यह पाया गया िक उपरोक्त सभी मनरेगा कायोर्ं में अिनयिमत की गयी है। ऐसा क्यों िकया गया इस सम्बन्ध में कोई िलिखया आदेश / िनदेर्श उपलब्ध नहीं करा पाये। अतः इस प्रकार के कायर् अिनयिमतता की श्रेणी में आते हैं। जो वसूली योग्य है। वतर्मान ग्राम प्रधान के कायर्काल आरम्भ होने से अब तक ग्राम पंचायत से लेकर िवकास खण्ड तक जो भी मनरेगा एक्ट 2005 के अनुसार कतर्व्यो की पालन हेतु पदासीन रहे िकसी ने भी अपने कतर्व्यों का सुचारु रूप से िनवार्हन नहीं िकया। मुझे सभी की पदानुसार संिलप्तता प्रतीत होती है। आदेश श्रीमान िजला अिधकारी / िजला कायर्क्रम समन्वयक महोदय कौशाम्बी को इस अनुरोध के साथ ग्राम प्रधान उमरावा से लेकर िवकास खण्ड स्तर तक जो भी उपरोक्त कायों में पदासीन रहे सभी से मनरेगा एक्ट 2005 एवं ग्राम िवकास िवभाग उ०प्र० मनरेगा (वसूली एस०ओ०पी०) के अनुसार दुरूपयोग की गई कु ल धनरािश 569244.00 पांच लाख उनहत्तर हजार दो सौ चौव्विलस रू०) मनरेगा खाते में जमा कराने हेतु सम्बिन्धत को िनदेर्िशत करने का काट करें। साथ ही अवगत कराना है िक सामािजक अंके क्षण में लगी टीमों का प्रभावी प्रिशक्षण कराया जाये। तािक आंिशक एवं लघु िशकायतों का पता चल सके । महोदय ग्राम प्रधान के कतर्व्यों के पालन हेतु ग्राम रोजगार सेवक की कोई व्यवस्था की जाये। तािक पारदिशता एवं सुिचता बनी रहे।" 7. From the aforesaid extracted order, it is evident that District Lokpal MGNREGA has framed three issues, but he did not record any finding on the three issues separately. Thus, the impugned award is non- speaking. 8. The impugned award further reveals that petitioner was not given any notice and opportunity of hearing whereas under the guidelines framed which the Ombudsman/Lokpal, MGNREGA has to follow in deciding the claim. The guidelines mandate that he shall give an opportunity of hearing to the concerned person against whom proceeding is initiated. 9. In such view of the fact, we find that the impugned order cannot be WRIC No. 11087 of 2025 2 sustained in law and is accordingly, set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent no.4-Lokpal MGNREGA, Kaushambi to decide the Complaint Case No.10/2024 08/2024 expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central Government. 10. The writ petition is allowed subject to observations made above. September 18, 2025 Sattyarth WRIC No. 11087 of 2025 3 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATTYARTH ANAND High Court of Judicature at Allahabad