PARVATI SEWTA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order, as they arise out of the order dtd. 13/12/2017 (Annexure P-1), whereby respondent No.2 has issued a recovery order for misappropriating the funds by producing a forged muster roll and fake invoices of the goods in the Village Panchayat- Badegauri and Bagdongri, where petitioner Parvati Sewta was posted as an Employment Assistant in Village- Badegauri and Raghuveer Patel was posted as Employment Assistant in Village- Bagdongri, pursuant to the decision taken on Cluster Level Exit Conference, which was held under Rule 10 of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme- Chhattisgarh, Social Audit Rules, 2015 (henceforth 'the Rules, 2015').

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that before issuing the recovery order (Annexure P-1), no show cause notice was issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioners. She would submit that in the said Rule, there is no specific exclusion of the 'Audi Alteram Partem' Rule and the Rules, 2015 not specifically excluded the principles of the natural justice. To fulfill the object of the natural justice for fair adjudication in any civil consequences, a notice is mandatory and she would place reliance in the matter of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Vs. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 664 and referred para 33. Further, she would place reliance in the matter of Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) And Others, (2014) 9 SCC 105 and referred paras 21 and 22. She alternatively would submit that even the procedure of the Rules, 2015 has not been adhered strictly. She would further submit that even after the Cluster Level Exit Conference, as stipulated under Rule 10, as a follow up action as envisaged under Rule 11, whenever a disciplinary action is ordered in the Exit Conference, such process is completed as per the Government Disciplinary/ Administrative Rules And Instructions. Therefore, the impugned recovery order is bad in law and prays to quash the same.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that as per Rule 7 of the Rules, 2015, an information on the Social Audit to Panchayat has been provided which reads thus: