Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.Nagaresh, J.
Padmakshi – Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary, Arattupuzha Grama Panchayath And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C).No.32302 OF 2013, 8713 OF 2015
Decided On : 22-03-2021
Ombudsman - MGNREGA - Section 13, Section 19, Section 32 - The court discussed the powers of the Ombudsman appointed under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 and the relevant sections of the Act. It highlighted that the Ombudsman does not have disciplinary powers over Mates and cannot impose penalties under the Act. The court set aside the Ombudsman's findings and the consequential order of the District Election Officer.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Chairperson of Area Development Society (ADS), challenged the findings of the Ombudsman, MGNREGA, and the proceedings of the District Election Officer. The Ombudsman found the petitioner guilty of irregularities in permitting beneficiaries to sign the muster roll and prescribed punishments. The Election Officer declared the petitioner ineligible for election to any post of the CDS.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Ombudsman's findings prescribing punishments to be imposed on the petitioner were ultra vires and unsustainable. It set aside the Ombudsman's findings and the consequential order of the District Election Officer.
Issues: The sustainability of the Ombudsman's order and the consequential order of the District Election Officer.
Ratio Decidendi: The Ombudsman appointed under the MGNREGA does not have disciplinary powers over Mates and cannot impose penalties under the Act.
Final Decision: The writ petitions are allowed, and the orders of the Ombudsman and the District Election Officer are set aside.
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner, who was Chairperson of Area Development Society (ADS) of Ward No.4 of Arattupuzha Panchayat, is challenging Ext.P1 findings of the Ombudsman, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Authority (MGNREGA), Alappuzha, in W.P.(C) No.32302/2013. In W.P.(C) No.8713/2015, the same petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 proceedings of the District Election Officer, Kudumbashree Mission.
2. Facts in brief relevant for deciding these writ petitions, are as follows :-
The petitioner was the Chairperson of Area Development Society (ADS) of Ward No.4 of Arattupuzha Panchayat. She was also a Mate of Ward No.4 among the beneficiaries of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. The 3rd respondent preferred a complaint before the Ombudsman, MGNREGA, Alappuzha against the petitioner. The complainant alleged that the petitioner attempted to snatch an amount of Rs.1,500/-by forging the signature of Thankamma, that she attempted to snatch an amount of Rs.1,050/-in the name of one Sindhu and that she marked attendance of Lekshmi Bhai and Udayamma while they were actually attending a procession of CPI(M) party.
3. The Ombudsman entertained the complaint. Six witnesses were examined. Three documents were marked. The petitioner's defence before the Ombudsman was that Thankamma was suffering from illness on the relevant days. Even though Thankamma reached the site for work, she could not do work. Thankamma’s husband was a cancer patient who passed away recently. Other employees unanimously requested the petitioner to collect money for Thankamma so as to enable Thankamma to purchase medicine. Therefore, the petitioner permitted Thankamma to put her signature in the muster roll.
4. The petitioner also admitted that Sindhu also did not work on all days. Sindhu was in hospital in connection with the surgery of her husband. Taking a humanitarian view in the matter, the petitioner permitted Sindhu to put her signature. The petitioner admitted before the Ombudsman that her conduct was not legal. It was motivated purely on humanitarian considerations. And as regards payments made to Lekshmi Bhai and Udayamma, the petitioner stated that they actually did work on the disputed days.
5. The Ombudsman in Ext.P1 findings held that to his knowledge, there is no provision in the MGNREG Act with regard to disciplinary action that may be taken against the Mates who are doing illegal acts against the provisions of the Act. The learned Ombudsman further noted that in the Operational Guidelines also, there is no mention regarding disciplinary action. Relying on a Government Circular dated 07.08.2012, the Ombudsman held that the Community Development Scheme (CDS), Executive Committee can take disciplinary action in such cases.
6. The learned Ombudsman, however, proceeded to consider the complaints. The Ombudsman found that the petitioner has committed illegality in permitting Thankamma and Sindhu to sign the muster roll. And as regards the complaints relating to Lekshmi Bhai and Udayamma participating in CPI(M) procession, the learned Ombudsman found that though there is no reliable evidence, the complaint raised cannot be said to be falsehood.
7. On these premises, the learned Ombudsman passed Ext.P1 making the following findings:-
2. I also find that it is a fit case in which the Panchayat Secretary is at liberty to take appropriate disciplinary action against Sindhu and Thankamma also.
3. I also find that this is a fit case in which a direction is to be given to the accredited engineer and overseer of the Arattupuzha Grama Panchayath through the Secretary to supervise and to have a special watch on Lekshmi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
