Madhya Pradesh High Court
Khoob Singh Lodhi (Narwaria) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 July, 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1 W.P.No.5217/2015 (Smt.Sumitra Devi & Ors.Vs.State of M.P. & Ors.)
W.P.No.5128/2015 (Purushottam Sharma Vs.State of M.P. & Ors.) &
W.P.7427/2016 (Khoob Singh Lodhi & Ors.Vs.State of M.P.&Ors.)
Gwalior Bench, Dated: 04.07.2018
Shri Rishikesh. Bohre and Dharmendra Nayak, learned
counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned Government Advocate for
respondents No.1to4/State.
Shri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the complainant/intervener.
Regard being had to similitude of controversy and subject matter, writ petitions bearing No.5217/2015, 5128/2015 and 7427/2016 are heard analogously and decided by a common order. For convenience sake, facts of writ petition No.5217/2015 are taken into consideration.
Present petition takes exception to the order dated 19-05- 2015 passed by Lokpal, Mahatma Gandhi, National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGA) whereby after considering the complaint and the documents appended thereto, direction was given for registration of criminal case against the petitioners.
The sole ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is opportunity of hearing. According to him, Lokpal before passing the said order never given any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners by issuance of notice, therefore, caused illegality and violated the principle of natural justice.
Learned counsel for the respondents on basis of reply opposed the prayer and submitted that in the present scheme of thing specially under the instructions of Ombudsman under MGNREGA, opportunity of hearing is not required to be given. Only on the basis of documents, appropriate decision can be taken by the Ombudsman. Here, petitioner committed misconduct and corruption, therefore, he was rightly subjected to criminal prosecution.
Heard.
From perusal of pleadings and instructions of Ombudsman IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 W.P.No.5217/2015 (Smt.Sumitra Devi & Ors.Vs.State of M.P. & Ors.) W.P.No.5128/2015 (Purushottam Sharma Vs.State of M.P. & Ors.) & W.P.7427/2016 (Khoob Singh Lodhi & Ors.Vs.State of M.P.&Ors.) under MGNREGA it appears that Ombudsman has to consider the complaint made against the erring Sarpanch and other persons falling under the jurisdiction of Ombudsman on the basis of documents produced before him but clause 8 (Powers and Duties of Ombudsman) and clause 12 (Disposal of Complaint) read in juxtaposition reveals that at least one opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the affected party. Although scope of opportunity of hearing is limited as per the instructions of Ombudsman under MGNREGA as placed by the petitioners but very proceedings in case in hand indicates that opportunity of hearing was never provided to the petitioners. Although, Ombudsman considered the case in hand objectively, but opportunity of hearing was missing in the case.
Therefore, the impugned order dated 19-05-2015 is hereby set aside with the direction to the Ombudsman to give opportunity of hearing to the parties, consider the policy and thereafter appropriate order be passed by Ombudsman. The parties are directed to appear before Ombudsman on 18-07- 2018 and will take guidance for further hearing. No adjournment would be given to the parties and after opportunity of hearing is provided to the petitioner, Ombudsman shall take its own decision on the basis of documents submitted and after considering the facts of the case. Since it is a matter relating to MGNREGA and alleged embezzlement of funds, therefore, looking to the seriousness of the matter, it needs to be decided within one month from the date of appearance.
Resultantly, the impugned order dated 19-05-2015 is set aside. Petition stands disposed of.
(Anand Pathak)
Anil* Judge
Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
Date: 2018.07.10 13:49:22 +05'30'