Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87640 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7334 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sharafat Ali Respondent :- Union Of India And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Srivastava,Saurabh Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Ashish Kumar Mishra,C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 & 2 as well as learned Standing Counsel. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has assailed the enquiry report submitted in the matter of complaint regarding misappropriation of public found in the MANREGA Scheme as well as the show cause notice issued to the petitioner in view of the findings returned in the enquiry report. 3. Two fold argument advanced by learned Senior Advocate, firstly the power exercised to hold an enquiry into the complaint was beyond the authority of State Government and its officials looking after the MANREGA Scheme under whose control MANREGA Scheme has been operating in view of the Central Government notification dated 02.09.2012 read with Section 27 of the Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005; and secondly it is the Pradhan who is in the helm of affairs qua management and spending towards expenditure given in respect of certain activities to be carried out under the MANREGA Scheme. 4. Countering the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel submits that the power vested with the Central Government under Section 27(1) is to give effective implementation to the provisions of the Act and can be very well delegated to the State Government and hence the procedure prescribed for holding enquiry into the matter of complaint dated 07.09.2012 can very well be exercised by the officials of the State Government. With regard to second submission, learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner can take defence in reply to the show cause notice by offering his explanation detailing therein all the relevant points and annexing therewith documents, if any, he wants to place in support of defence. 5. Having head learned counsel for the parties, in order to appreciate the argument, I reproduce Section 27(1) & (2) of MANREGA Act as under: "27. Power of Central Government to give directions.--(1) The Central Government may give such directions as it may consider necessary to the State Government for the effective implementation of the provisions of this Act. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), the Central Government may, on receipt of any complaint regarding the issue or improper utilisation of funds granted under this Act in respect of any Scheme if prima facie satisfied that there is a case, cause an investigation into the complaint made by any agency designated by it and if necessary, order stoppage of release of funds to the Scheme and institute appropriate remedial measures for its proper implementation within a reasonable period of time." 6. Upon a bare reading of the provisions, I find power vested in Central Government can very well be delegated and hence I see no valid legal ground available to the petitioner to question the order of suspension. 7. In so far as thee second argument is concerned, it amounts to defence, which is available to the petitioner to raise in departmental enquiry. Thus, I do not find even second ground to be tenable. 8. However, in the given facts and circumstances, this petition stands disposed of with following observations. (i) In the first instance, the respondent concerned to serve a duly approved charge sheet upon the petitioner, if already not served, within two weeks of production of certified copy of this order. (ii) Petitioner shall submit reply to the charge-sheet within a further period of 3 weeks. (iii) If petitioner wants any document in order to make his reply effective, he may apply for the same within two weeks' time from the date of issuance of certified copy of this order and such request will be acceded to by the inquiry officer and in the event, documents are such that copies whereof cannot be supplied, then petitioner would be permitted to peruse the same within the next two weeks. In the circumstances, supplementary reply, if any, will be submitted by the petitioner within a further period of 3 weeks after the expiry of the aforesaid 3 weeks of perusal of document. (iv) With the submission of supplementary reply, the departmental inquiry in the matter of charge-sheet shall be concluded within next 30 days' time giving due participation to the petitioner in oral inquiry. (v) After the inquiry report is submitted, disciplinary authority shall proceed to pass final order in the matter by strictly following the procedure prescribed under relevant punishment and appeal rules and also by abiding principles of natural justice. (vi) For the period petitioner remains under suspension, he shall be entitled to receive subsistence allowance and if any amount towards subsistence allowance has remained unpaid, the same shall be also cleared within 3 weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. (vii) It is further provided that in the event despite due cooperation rendered by the petitioner, the disciplinary proceedings are not concluded within the time frame prescribed hereinabove, the order of suspension dated 17.02.2025 shall stand revoked and petitioner would be reinstated with salary. Order Date :- 23.5.2025 IrfanUddin Digitally signed by :- IRFAN UDDIN SIDDIKI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad