The concept of Social Audit under the Act and Rules 2015 provides for the concerned official functionary to respond and give explanation and clarification before any decision for recovery of misappropriated funds.

ORDER :

1. These two Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order, as they arise out of the order dated 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:

“Information on the Social Audit to Panchayats-

(1) The CEO, Janpad Panchayat shall notify in writing to the following, well in advance, to ensure that they must also be present at Social Audit Gram Sabha as well as at the cluster level Exit Conference :-

(a) Public representatives,

(b) Concerned functionaries of MGNREGS,

(c) Concerned Post Office/Bank representatives.

(2) He shall also inform the concerned Sarpanchs to convene Social Audit Gram Sabha as per the expected date of completion of social audit.”

4. He would further submit that in the entire Petition, no such pleading was made that information on the Social Audit to Panchayat was not given to the petitioner concerned. He would further submit that as the present petitioners are the functionaries of MGNREGA Scheme, so without their presence, any such meeting was not possible. He would further submit that the Social Audit which has been cohered in the Rules 2015 is itself inherent and complied the provision of the natural justice. So, no separate notice was required to be issued. He would submit that under Rule 10, the procedure of Cluster Level Exit Conference was stipulated and in the said conference, the petitioners, who are the official functionaries are bound to address each of the issues identified in the Social Audit. In the Social Audit, the same has been identified and a decision was taken that for the forged vouchers an opportunity may be given. Thereafter, in the Cluster Level Exit Conference, as per the statutory rules, a decision was taken that a recovery has to be made from the concerned Sarpanch/Secretary, Technical Assistant and Employment Assistant. In pursuance of the same, recovery order (Ex-P/1) was issued. So there is no breach of any fair enquiry and the decision was taken after