RAMALINGAIAH Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is said to be a former member of the Bisalavadi Gram Panchayat, had made complaints against the respondent Nos.4 to 7, who were the Panchayat Development Officer, Secretary, President and Junior Engineer of the Panchayat Raj Sub-Division during the relevant period, stating that the four of them have conspired to claim monies from the Gram Panchayat in respect of certain works carried out under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (for short "MGNREG Scheme"). It was alleged by the petitioners that no such works were carried out and the contesting respondents have created bogus documents, raised bills illegally and having usurped the funds of the Gram Panchayat and therefore the petitioner requested that action be taken against all such persons and monies should be recovered from them.

(2.) Action was initiated against the said persons and the Ombudsman under MGNREG Scheme took up the matter in compliant No.72/2013-14. After collecting all the evidence and giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned, including the petitioner, the Ombudsman came to a conclusion that there is substance in the complaint made by the petitioner. The Ombudsman concluded from the material available on record and as per his spot inspection carried out he did not find the works to have been undertaken and bills were raised for works not undertaken and same were illegally claimed and received by the contesting respondents herein. Consequently, the Ombudsman specified the amounts recoverable by each of the persons who were respondents before the Ombudsman and passed an order on 27/1/2015 directing that action should be taken to recover the said amounts from the persons mentioned therein.

(3.) The contesting respondents filed an appeal before the appellate authority under MGNREG Scheme and the Appellate Authority which comprises of two officers came to a conclusion that although there may have been certain irregularities in following the due procedure as contemplated under the scheme and the provisions of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, the finding of the Ombudsman that works were not carried out at all could not be accepted in view of the evidence available on record which would clearly conclude that works were indeed carried out. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the order passed by the Ombudsman was set aside.