JUDGMENT : SANDEEP KUMAR, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “i. For issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 25.04.2023 passed by the Respondent No.1 and communicated to the petitioner vide Gyapank No.1728131 dated 27.04.2023 whereby and where-under appeal has been dismissed as well as the order dated 01.12.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Patna (Respondent No.2) and communicated to the petitioner vide Gyapank No.2080 dated 01.12.2022 whereby and whereunder the contract of the petitioner on the post of Programme Officer, MGNREGA has been cancelled and direction has been given for lodging of FIR. ii. For issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus for a direction to the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Programme Officer, MGNREGA with all consequential benefits as the order passed by the respondent authorities is based on biasness and prejudice mind.” 2 . In the year 2007, the petitioner was appointed as the Programme Officer under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 and subsequently after working in various districts of Bihar, she was transferred and posted at Danapur Block, Patna vide order dated 18.12.2020, where she joined on 19.12.2020. 3 . It is the case of the petitioner that while working at Danapur, the petitioner found that the Panchyat Rojgar Sevak, Ganghara, Danapur is not working properly and therefore the predecessor of the petitioner as well as the petitioner had sent several letters, bringing this to the notice of the respondent authorities. Certain Van Poshaks had also sent a letter to the respondent no.3 regarding the non-payment of their remuneration by the Panchyat Rojgar Sevak, Ganghara, Danapur. In this backdrop, a show cause notice was issued by the respondent no.3 on 02.09.2021 to the petitioner and others seeking an explanation regarding the non-payment of the remuneration to the Van Poshaks. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted her response on 24.09.2021, stating categorically, that all the schemes were initiated in the month of July, 2020, that is, before the joining of the present petitioner, and therefore the then Programme Officer and the Panchyat Rojgar Sevak, Ganghara were responsible for the non-payment. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted her response on 24.09.2021, stating categorically, that all the schemes were initiated in the month of July, 2020, that is, before the joining of the present petitioner, and therefore the then Programme Officer and the Panchyat Rojgar Sevak, Ganghara were responsible for the non-payment. Further, upon learning of these facts, the petitioner has directed the Panchyat Rojgar Sevak, to make physical inspection of the schemes and submit a report to initiate the payments to the Van Poshaks. Subsequently, the payments were made, and the Van Poshaks as a consequence had sent an application dated 22.10.2021 regarding withdrawal of their earlier complaint. 4 . It is the further case of the petitioner that suddenly a show cause notice dated 02.02.2022 was served upon the petitioner and others regarding the irregularities found in 17 plantation schemes during the inspection. In connection to the aforesaid show cause notice, the Panchyat Rojgar Sevak- Arun Kumar sent a letter dated 14.03.2022 to the petitioner, stating therein that there were certain defects in the records relating to the 17 plantation schemes which were removed and further that due to floods and ensuing water logging, some plants were destroyed, but were again planted and thereafter the remuneration would also be paid to the Van Poshaks. The petitioner sent her reply to the show-cause notice dated 02.02.2022 on 21.03.2022. Thereafter the respondent no.2, District Magistrate, Patna passed the order dated 01.07.2022, whereby, the contract of the petitioner to the post of Programme Officer, MGNREGA was cancelled and further an order of recovery of Rs.3,92,800/- from the petitioner was also passed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 01.07.2022, the petitioner preferred an appeal, raising the ground that the aforesaid order dated 01.07.2022 was passed without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and further that the show cause notice did not contemplate the facts which were later on included in the order dated 01.07.2022. The appellate authority vide order dated 21.10.2022, remanded the matter back for a fresh consideration. Thereafter, the matter again came before the District Magistrate, Patna for re-consideration, and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing, the District Magistrate, Patna passed the impugned order dated 01.12.2022. Since the aforesaid impugned order brings out the background of the present case at hand, it may be apposite to quote the entire impugned order dated 01.12.2022, which reads as under:- 5 . Since the aforesaid impugned order brings out the background of the present case at hand, it may be apposite to quote the entire impugned order dated 01.12.2022, which reads as under:- 5 . Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order passed by the respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Patna, by which he had sustained the earlier cancellation of the contract of the petitioner under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 as the Programme Officer and order of recovery of Rs.3,92,800/- from the petitioner and additionally ordered for registration of F.I.R against the petitioner, the petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be rejected vide impugned order dated 06.12.2022. 6 . The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 01.12.2022 passed by the respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Patna is bad and unsustainable since it has brought new points, beyond the charges levelled in the original show cause notice. The show cause notice issued to the petitioner was based on ten points, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, has not been taken into consideration in the aforesaid impugned order dated 01.12.2022 and rather the same has been passed on entirely new set of six points which do not form part of the show cause notice and as such are unsustainable. The learned counsel has emphasised that it is well settled that the punishment order can not be passed on new grounds which is not the part of the show cause notice since it violates the principles of natural justice. To buttress this argument, the learned counsel has drawn strength from the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income tax, Mumbai vs. Amitabh Bachchan reported as 2016 (11) SCC 748 and M/s Popcorn Entertainment and Ors vs. CT Industrial Corportaion and Ors. passed in Civil Appeal 941 of 2007 7 . The learned counsel has also relied on the decision of the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of M/s C.J. DARCL Logistics Limited vs Union of India & Ors. reported as neutral citation 2023 : JHHC : 4980- DB (W.P. (T) 215 of 2022). 8 . passed in Civil Appeal 941 of 2007 7 . The learned counsel has also relied on the decision of the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of M/s C.J. DARCL Logistics Limited vs Union of India & Ors. reported as neutral citation 2023 : JHHC : 4980- DB (W.P. (T) 215 of 2022). 8 . It is next submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner was not considered by the respondent authorities before passing the impugned order dated 01.12.2022 and the fact that the respondent authorities have taken the past conduct of the petitioner into consideration while no such contemplation was made in the show cause is also violative of principles of natural justice. 9 . The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Md. Yunus Khan vs. State of U.P. & Ors. passed in (SLP (C) 19318 of 2007. 10 . It is also argued that impugned punishment order dated 01.12.2022 is cryptic and non-speaking in nature, therefore totally unsustainable and in the teeth of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan reported as (2010) 9 SCC 496 11 . Lastly, it is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent authorities have themselves not followed their own guidelines dated 08.07.2020 and as such, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 12 . A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the answering respondent nos. 2 to 4, wherein it is submitted that based on complaints received regarding implementation of the plantation work under the Gram Panchyat, Ganghara under the Danapur Block, Patna, a district level inspection team conducted enquiry / joint inspection on 01.12.2021 regarding the 17 schemes under MGNREGA. The aforesaid joint inspection comprised of District Programme Officer, DRDA, Patna and Executive Engineer MGNREGA Patna in presence of the Programme Officer, Danapur, Panchyat Rojgar Sevak, beneficiaries and the villagers. An inquiry report was submitted on 23.12.2021 noticing several irregularities in the execution of the plantation work. 13 . Paragraph no.7 of the counter affidavit detailing the nature of irregularities found during inspection are as under:- “7.That it has been found that the total amount of Rs. 16,64,750/- spent in the 17 schemes without verification of the complete records. An inquiry report was submitted on 23.12.2021 noticing several irregularities in the execution of the plantation work. 13 . Paragraph no.7 of the counter affidavit detailing the nature of irregularities found during inspection are as under:- “7.That it has been found that the total amount of Rs. 16,64,750/- spent in the 17 schemes without verification of the complete records. The name of scheme has not been found to be mentioned in the records. The detail of the land/consent letter has not been found in the record on which plantation has been done. The signature of Panchayat Technical Assistant in place of Panchayat Rojgar Sevak has been found as executant and there is no date mentioned. The Master Roll has not been issued for plantations. Out of 17 schemes 16 schemes has not been found to be listed on the notice board. There is no photograph of the plantation work done. On private land rate of Rs. 2900/- has been fixed for plantations schemes to be put on notice board. But for this Rs.4500/-has been paid, which is serious financial irregularity. This has been accepted by the concerned Programme Officer and Panchayat Technical Assistant. Further wire fencing of only four schemes has been done but payment for nine schemes has been done. There is no mention of fencing and pesticide work in the measurement book, but the amount has been withdrawn.” 14 . It is next submitted that a show cause was issued on 02.02.2022 to all concerned persons including the present petitioner and the petitioner was heard personally on 28.05.2022 before the District Magistrate, Patna and thereafter, impugned order dated 01.07.2022 was passed terminating the contract of the petitioner and ordering for recovery of Rs.3,92,800/- from the petitioner. 15 . It is stated in the counter affidavit that after the remand by the appellate authority, the District Magistrate, Patna again heard the matter and during the reconsideration, the petitioner had appeared personally, but she could not bring any material/document which could prove her innocence in the alleged financial irregularity. During reconsideration, it was also found that earlier also, the District Magistrate, Begusarai had passed an order dated 24.01.2014 whereby serious charges of defalcation of Government money, dereliction of duty, carelessness and indiscipline were levelled against the petitioner. It was also submitted that vide letter dated 31.01.2021, the Programme Officer, Begusarai had even directed for registration of F.I.R. 16 . During reconsideration, it was also found that earlier also, the District Magistrate, Begusarai had passed an order dated 24.01.2014 whereby serious charges of defalcation of Government money, dereliction of duty, carelessness and indiscipline were levelled against the petitioner. It was also submitted that vide letter dated 31.01.2021, the Programme Officer, Begusarai had even directed for registration of F.I.R. 16 . Lastly, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned orders under challenge and has submitted that the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality and have been passed after giving proper opportunity to the petitioner. 17 . I have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the materials available on record. 18 . In the present case, based on the joint inspection report wherein several discrepancies were detected, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 02.02.2022. From perusal of the show-cause notice, it appears that the response from the petitioner was asked on ten points. However, the order dated 01.07.2022 indicates that altogether six points were considered, which according to the petitioner, were distinct and different from the ten points raised in the aforesaid show- cause notice issued to the petitioner. The aforesaid argument was made in appeal by the petitioner and on this ground, the appellate authority had remanded the matter back to the District Magistrate, Patna, for reconsideration. After remand, the District Magistrate, afforded personal hearing to the petitioner and passed the impugned order dated 01.12.2022, by which, the earlier punishment order dated 01.07.2022 was sustained and additionally, a direction for registration of the F.I.R. against the petitioner was passed. The aforesaid impugned order dated 01.12.2022 was challenged by the petitioner in appeal unsuccessfully. 19 . From perusal of the impugned order dated 01.12.2022, it appears that though the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of personal hearing by the District Magistrate but the District Magistrate in the impugned order has recorded that the petitioner has failed to bring on record any document/material to establish her innocence, which inverts the burden on the petitioner which is impermissible. 20 . It is trite law that the onus lies upon the department/authority concerned alleging misconduct against the delinquent, though strict principle of evidence does not apply but the threshold of preponderance of probabilities must be met by the department/authority based on relevant cogent materials. 20 . It is trite law that the onus lies upon the department/authority concerned alleging misconduct against the delinquent, though strict principle of evidence does not apply but the threshold of preponderance of probabilities must be met by the department/authority based on relevant cogent materials. Mere submission of joint enquiry report does not end the work of the department but the aforesaid documents must not only be proved by the department, but the contents of the aforesaid report along with other relevant materials must illustrate the alleged act against the delinquent on the threshold of preponderance of probabilities. Moreover, the impugned order dated 01.12.2022 also records that the petitioner has an antecedent while she was posted in the district of Begusarai. This fact was neither mentioned in the show-cause notice nor a response was sought from the petitioner on this point. 21 . This Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 01.12.2022 is not in compliance with the principles of natural justice and prejudice has been caused to the petitioner for non-observance of the principles of audi alteram partem, inasmuch as, the petitioner has not been afforded a meaningful opportunity to defend on the points on which the impugned order was passed. 22 . In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned order dated 01.12.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Patna and the consequential appellate order dated 25.04.2023 are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the District Magistrate, Patna, who shall proceed from the stage of issuance of fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner, which shall contemplate proposed punishment together with the grounds on which the action against the petitioner is initiated, and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 23 . With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is allowed to the above extent.