R.G. AVACHAT, J.

Rule, made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and the learned A.G.P., heard finally.

2. These petitions have been filed for quashment of the orders dated 24th February, 2015 and 24th November, 2015, passed by the Ombudsmen and the Appellate Authority, respectively, under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (for short, “MNREGA”) and the Rules framed thereunder.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent No.3 – Zilla Parishad, respondent Nos.6 to 8 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader.

FACTS :

4. Most of the petitioners are public servants (petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 12166/2015, 11956/2015, 11957/2015, 12092/2015, 12224/2015, 12080/2015, 472/2016 and 1754/2016). At the relevant time, they were serving with the Revenue Department and Zilla Parishad, at Pathardi in the district of Ahmednagar. Other petitioners claim to be unemployed agriculturists.

Respondent Nos.6 to 8 herein had filed the Public Interest Litigation (“PIL”, for short) No.68 of 2014 before this Court seeking directions to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take appropriate action against erring officials, including the petitioners, who were found to have committed rampant illegalities in implementation of the Schemes under the MNREGA.

A Division Bench of this Court, vide its order dated 2nd July, 2014, disposed of the aforesaid PIL with a direction to the Collector, Ahmednagar to cause an inquiry into the allegations made in the PIL and take remedial steps. Pursuant thereto, the Collector appointed the Ombudsmen under the MNREGA to go into the allegations. The Ombudsmen, in turn, conducted inquiry into the allegations and found the petitioners to have siphoned off public funds in implementing the Schemes under the MNREGA. The Ombudsmen submitted their report to the Collector. It is alleged that the Collector sat on the said report. Respondent Nos.6 to 8, therefore, filed Contempt Petition for noncompliance of the order passed by this Court in the PIL. Meanwhile, the petitioners preferred writ petitions, challenging the award/order passed by the Ombudsmen. Since, under the Scheme, an appeal has been provided against the award/order passed by the Ombudsman, the writ petitions came to be disposed of. The petitioners took recourse to the appeal. A three Member Appellate Authority, after hearing the petitioners and the concerned, slightly modified the impugned award. Hence, these writ petitions, challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority.

SUBMISSIONS :

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit in one voice that the Ombudsmen did not give the petitioners hearing. The principles of natural justice have not been followed. Respondent Nos.6 to 8 had filed the Public Interest Litigation with a political motive. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners in writ petition No.11956 of 2015 that the work of desilting was carried out in the year 2011-2012, whereas the inquiry in that regard took place in the year 2015. The Government had issued directions in respect of such work. It had been directed that such work has to be undertaken before onset of rainy season. For, after the rainfall, it would not be possible to inspect the works at the bottom of percolation tanks. These petitioners mean to say that the inspection and measurement of the alleged work took place after the evidence thereof disappeared. On behalf of all the petitioners, the relevant guidelines to be followed by the Ombudsmen were pressed into service to suggest that those have not been adhered to. Some of the petitioners have also made a blame game. According to them, the officials, who were responsible for implementation of the schemes, have been let off. The Ombudsmen were biased against the petitioners. A complaint in that regard had already been preferred to the Collector. It was submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners in writ petition Nos. 12206/2015, 12207/201