1 CGHC010198142023 2026:CGHC:36670 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3383 of 2023 1 - D.K. Soni S/o Late Ramji Prasad Soni Aged About 45 Years R/o - Nawapara, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner Mahatma Gandhi N.R.E.G.A. Chhattisgarh, Vikas Bhawan, Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ombusdsman Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, Sarguja, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Lokpal Appellate Authority Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, R.C.T.R.C. And R.R.N.M.U. Bhawan, Third Floor, Room No. 315, 316 And 317, Village- Jhanjh, Sector- 24, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Executive Officer / Program Officer / Sarpanch / Secretary / Employment Assistant Village Panchayat- Jogiband Janpad Panchayat Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. For State : Shri Anmol Sharma, PL. For Respondent No.5 : Shri Javed Khan appears on behalf of Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocates. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/08/2026 1. This Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.08.18 18:40:32 +0530 2 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 18.01.2023 passed by the respondent No. 04 in Appeal Award No. 237/2022 and order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the respondent No. 03 in Case No. 56/Lo. Pa/MNREGA/ Sarguja, in the interest of justice. 10.2 Any other order/direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be issued, in the interest of justice. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being aggrieved by the irregularities and alleged corruption committed in the execution of various works under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) in Village Panchayat Jogiband, Janpad Panchayat Ambikapur, District Surguja, submitted a complaint before the learned Ombudsman, MGNREGA, Surguja on 23.10.2017. In the said complaint, the petitioner specifically alleged that payments had been made despite non-completion of the sanctioned works, forged muster rolls had been prepared and utilized, and works had been executed in an improper and substandard manner. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, Case No. 56/10.Pa./MNREGA/Surguja was registered before Respondent No.3 on 23.10.2017 and notices were issued to the concerned respondents. The statements of the petitioner as well as Respondent No.5 were thereafter recorded in the proceedings. Despite the nature of allegations raised by the petitioner, particularly with regard to the physical execution and quality of the works, no spot inspection or physical verification of the works in question was conducted by the learned Ombudsman. No effective inquiry was undertaken to verify the allegations regarding the alleged irregular payments, preparation of forged muster rolls and non-completion or poor quality of the works. Thereafter, the learned Ombudsman passed the impugned award/order 3 dated 24.03.2022, whereby the complaint preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. While dismissing the complaint, the learned Ombudsman also imposed a penalty of Rs.5,000/- upon the petitioner. The said penalty was imposed without affording the petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing on the issue of penalty and without recording cogent and specific reasons as to how the complaint was found to be false, frivolous or vexatious. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid award dated 24.03.2022, preferred an appeal before Respondent No.4. In the appeal, the petitioner specifically challenged the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted before the learned Ombudsman. It was pointed out that no spot inspection had been carried out, no relevant documents had been called for from the concerned authorities or construction agency, and the findings had been arrived at primarily on the basis of statements recorded during the proceedings. Respondent No.4, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. However, while deciding the appeal, Respondent No.4 failed to properly consider and adjudicate the specific grounds raised by the petitioner. In particular, the appellate authority did not deal with the legality and propriety of the penalty of Rs.5,000/- imposed upon the petitioner and failed to assign adequate reasons while affirming the order passed by the learned Ombudsman. The instructions/guidelines governing the functioning of the Ombudsman under MGNREGA contemplate a fair and effective inquiry into complaints. Where the facts alleged in a complaint are disputed, the concerned parties are required to be afforded an opportunity to produce evidence and thereafter, upon hearing the parties, an appropriate and reasoned award is required to be passed. The provisions relating to 4 imposition of penalty upon a complainant contemplate such penalty in cases where the complaint is found to be false and vexatious. She submits that in the present case, the learned Ombudsman neither conducted a detailed inquiry nor undertook any spot inspection for verification of the allegations made by the petitioner. The impugned award does not disclose any cogent reasoning demonstrating the basis on which the complaint was held to be false, frivolous or vexatious so as to warrant imposition of penalty upon the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the State and private respondent submits that since the complaint was found to be vexatious, order dated 24.03.2022 was passed by Respondent No.3 by which penalty was imposed upon the petitioner and the petitioner has filed appeal against the said order before appellate authority under MGNREGA scheme which has also been dismissed. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties, it appears that petitioner being an Right to Information Act activist had made a written complaint dated 23.10.2017 before the respondent authorities against the irregularities and alleged corruption committed in the execution of various works under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) in Village Panchayat Jogiband, Janpad Panchayat Ambikapur, District Surguja. Subsequently, upon enquiry, it was found that the complaint preferred was vexatious and as such, penalty of Rs.5000/- was imposed upon the petitioner by order dated 24.03.2022 which was upheld by the appellate authority i.e. Respondent No.4. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that although the complaint made by the petitioner was found to be vexatious by 5 the learned Ombudsman and the penalty of Rs.5,000/- was consequently imposed, the petitioner had approached the authorities raising allegations relating to irregularities in the execution of MGNREGA works. Considering the nature of the allegations and the fact that the petitioner is stated to be an activist under the Right to Information Act, this Court deems it appropriate to consider this aspect that petitioner has not made a complaint in a malafide manner and the complaint was based upon the information as received by him and as such, this Court takes a lenient view with regard to the penalty imposed upon him. Accordingly, the penalty of Rs.5,000/- imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 24.03.2022 and affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 18.01.2023 is hereby relaxed/set aside. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 6. However, the petitioner is cautioned to exercise due care and diligence and to verify the facts and material available with him before making or submitting any complaint before the competent authorities in future, so that unsubstantiated or vexatious complaints are not made and adverse orders are not occasioned against him. It is made clear that this Court has taken the aforesaid view only in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the same shall not be treated as a precedent for future complaints. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash