SETHO PRASAD GUPTA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the award dated 07.02.2012 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No. 3, in complaint case No. 19 (Om Prakash Soni v. Setho Prasad Gupta) whereunder the Ombudsmen, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (for short 'MNREGA), has directed to register a criminal case against the petitioners and to recover the amount of wages from petitioner No. 2.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner No. 1 is holding the substantive post of Assistant Grade III in the department of Panchayat & Rural Development. At present, he is discharging his duties in the office of Collector, Balrampur. The petitioner No. 2 was appointed on the post of Mate under the MNREGA, on the basis of resolution passed by Gram Panchayat, Bhanora, and the petitioner No. 3 is holding the substantive post of Panchayat Secretary, and posted at Gram Panchayat, Bhanora. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) (for short 'the SDO'), Ramanujganj, District Balrampur, on the basis of news published in a newspaper, issued show cause notice dated 24.10.2011 (Annexure P/5) to the petitioner No. 1 to cause his appearance on 03.01.2011 and an enquiry was initiated on the basis of the said news clipping. The statement of the petitioner No. 1 and 2 were recorded. The SDO found that the allegations contained in the complaint that job card was prepared in the name of wife and son of Setho Prasad Gupta was found to be false. The SDO also recorded the finding that the respondent No. 2 obtained the amount of wages for 60 days and he has not obtained the amount of wages more than 60 days. It was further found by the SDO that no resolution was passed by the Janpad Panchayat, Balrampur for demand of employment. The report of the SDO was sent to the Commissioner, Surguja Division stating that the allegations contained in the newspaper were false. All of a sudden, the respondent No. 6 filed a written complaint which was received on 19.10.2011 before the respondent No. 3. The same was registered as complaint No. 19. The respondent No. 3 directed the petitioner No. 1 and 2 to remain present before him for recording their statements.

(3.) It is the allegation of petitioners that no copy of the complaint was served, nor any show cause notice was issued, nor they were informed about the allegations leveled against them. The respondent No. 3 collected material behind the back of the petitioners and thereafter, on the basis of statements and material collected during the course of the enquiry, the impugned award dated 07.02.2012 was passed.