1 2026:CGHC:25725 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 569 of 2018 1 - Manjulata Sahu W/o Yugal Kishore, Aged About 35 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Parsoda, Janpad Panchayat Charama, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3 - Lokpal, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Kanker., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 1685 of 2018 1 - Arjun Singh Sewta S/o Rambhagi Sewta Aged About 49 Years Posted As Secretary, Gram Panchayat- Parsoda Janpad Panchayat- Charama, District- Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhttisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh -2- 3 - Lokpal Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Kanker, Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For petitioners : Ms. Suryakawalkar Dangi, Advocate For respective respondents : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, G.A. and Mr. Shivam Mishra, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23.06.2026 1. In both petitions, the petitioners have sought the following relief(s):-: “i. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned orders dated 07.11.2017 issued by respondent No.02. (Annexure P/1). ii. Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner namely Manjulata Sahu was officiating Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Parsoda, Janpad Panchayat Charama, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.), whereas, the petitioner namely, Arjun Singh Sewta was Technical Assistant, Janpad Panchayat Charama, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.). On the basis of newspaper report published in Navbharat, a complaint was made before Lokpal, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Kanker and said case was registered as Case No.19/2017. The award was passed by Ombudsman on 21.09.2017, wherein, recommendation was made to recover an amount from the responsible persons, who caused financial loss to Gram Panchayat after due enquiry. 3 3. Pursuant to award passed by the Ombudsman, respondent No.2 passed an order of recovery to the tune of Rs.25,311/- against each of the petitioners. 4. Ms. Dangi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Ombudsman vide award dated 21.09.2017 recommended to recover the amount after due investigation from the persons responsible for committing financial irregularities in construction work in the Gram Panchayat. She would further submit that Ombudsman MGNREGA has no authority of law to impose any punishment and it can only recommend to the State Government to take action. She would contend that the Ombudsman had no power to quantify the amount of fine and matter should have been referred to respondent No.2 for inquiry. She would further contend that respondent No.2 should have conducted an inquiry prior to pass order of recovery. She would submit that as no inquiry was conducted by respondent No.2, order of recovery dated 07.11.2017 (Annexure P/1) is bad in law. 5. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for respondents would oppose the submissions. They would submit that no direction was issued by the Ombudsman to conduct an inquiry. It is also argued that only recommendation was made by the Ombudsman to recover the amount, therefore, the contention made by learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be incorrect. They would further contend that both petitions are misconceived and deserve to be dismissed. -4- 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. Guidelines were issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development Mahatma Gandhi NREGA Division on 28th August, 2017. Chapter III of this clause 8 deals with powers and responsibilities of the Ombudsman and same is reproduced herein below : “Chapter III 8. Powers and Responsibilities 8.1 The Ombudsman shall have power to:- (i) receive complaints from MGNREGA workers and others on any matters specified in clause 9 either at office or in the field during a field inspection. (ii) consider such complaints and pass awards within 30 days from the date of receipt of complaint. For this purpose, he may require the MGNREGA Authority complained against to provide any information or furnish certified copies of any document relating to the subject matter of the complaint which is or is alleged to be in his possession; provided that in the event of failure of such authority to comply with the requisition without any sufficient cause, the Ombudsman may, if he deems fit, draw the inference that the information, if provided or copies if furnished, would be unfavourable to the concerned MGNREGA Authority. (iii) issue direction for conducting spot investigation. (iv) initiate 'proceedings suo motu in the event of any circumstance arising within his jurisdiction that may cause any grievance including on issues related to delayed payment of wages or non- payment of unemployment allowance as recorded in the MIS. (v) engage experts for facilitating the disposal of the complaint. State Government may formulate suitable guidelines in this regard. (vi) direct redressal, disciplinary and corrective actions. (vii) report his/her awards to the District Programme Coordinator (DPC) of the District and the Secretary, State Nodal Department. Wherever Ombudsman feels the need to do so he/she may mark a copy to the Chief Secretary. The report shall specially highlight cases where action needs to be taken against erring MGNREGA functionaries for their failure to redress the grievance. The report will be accompanied with primary evidence needed to initiate action against the delinquent persons. 8.2 The Ombudsman shall be responsible for: 8.2.1 Ensuring proper processing of complaints and grievances made or reported to him/her. 8.2.2 Maintaining confidentiality of any information or document coming into his/her knowledge or possession in the course of discharging his/her duties and not disclose such information or document to any person except with the consent of the person furnishing such information or document; provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent the Ombudsman from disclosing information or documents furnished by a party in a complaint to the other party or parties, to the extent considered by him to be reasonably required to comply with the principles of natural justice and fair play in the proceedings. 5 8.2.3 Sending a quarterly report to the Chief Secretary and Secretary, State Nodal-Department recommending appropriate action. The report shall specially highlight cases where action needs to be taken against erring MGNREGA functionaries for their failure to redress grievances. The report will be accompanied by primary evidence needed to initiate action against the delinquent persons. 8.2.4 Furnishing a report every year containing a general review of activities of the office of the Ombudsman during the preceding financial year to the Chief Secretary and the Secretary, State Nodal Department along with such other information as may be considered necessary by him/her. In the annual report, the Ombudsman, on the basis of grievances handled by him/her, will review the quality of the working of the MGNREGA authorities and make recommendations to improve implementation of MGNREGA. The report shall be displayed on the MGNREGA website. 8.2.5 Compiling a list of 'awards' of Ombudsman between April and March of each financial year in respect of every MGNREGA Authority complained against and report it to the Chief Secretary of the State and the State Nodal Department. Text of awards shall also be displayed on the MGNREGA website by the State Nodal Department.” A bare reading of above-quoted provision would make it clear that the Ombudsman may pass an award within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of complaint. The Ombudsman may a issue direction to conduct spot investigation, engage experts for facilitating the disposal of the complaint. 8. In the present case, the Ombudsman recommended recovery of Rs.25,311/- against each of the petitioners but at the same time, quantified amount which appears to be erroneous. Before issuance of order of recovery, respondent No.2/Chief Executive Officer should have conducted an inquiry after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. As no fact finding inqury was conducted and pursuant to award passed by the Ombudsman, order of recovery was issued by respondent No.2, therefore, impugned order dated 07.11.2017 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly, the same is quashed. However, respondent No.2 would be at liberty to pass fresh order with regard to recovery after affording due opportunity of hearing to the -6- petitioners. 9. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), both petitions are disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha