Back
2012 Supreme(Raj) 722
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
Sagar Mal Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Bhandari, J.)
HON'BLE M.N. BHANDARI, J.
Sagar Mal Jain
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 6339 & 1328 of 2012, decided on 30.05.2012
Sunil Kumar Singodiya, for Petitioners;
G.S. Bapna, Advocate General and Senior Advocate with Sarvesh Jain, for State
Headnote:Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, Sec. 17 — Undertaking special audit and physical verification of the work on the instruction of Collector — Found certain irregularities — Order to recover the amount — No opportunity of heaving was given — Authority — Held — Under Rajasthan Gramin Rozgar Guarantee Yojna, 2006, the State Govt. is empowered for proper untilization of Founds, implementation of the scheme and to fix responsibility of those persons who cause impediments in its execution — Collector is the co-ordinator of NAREGA work at District level thus special audit at his level cannot be said to be in violation of Sec. 17 of the Act — The scheme should not be frustrated at the cost of those who indulged in irregularities and corruption — Respondents are under obligation to follow principles of natural justice — At liberty to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing. (Paras 14 to 16)
Writ petitions disposed of.
egkRek xka/kh jk"Vªh; xzkeh.k jkstxkj xkjUVh vf/kfu;e] 2005] /kkjk 17 & dysDVj ds funsZ'k ij dk;Z dh fo'ks"k vads"k.k ,oa HkkSfrd lR;kiu djkuk & dfri; vfu;ferrk,a ik;h xbZ & jkf'k olwyus ds vkns'k fn;s & lquokbZ dk volj ugha fn;k & izkf/kdkj & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & jktLFkku xzkeh.k jkstxkj xkjUVh ;kstuk] 2006 ds rgr jkT; ljdkj blds dks"k ds leqfpr mi;ksx] ;kstuk dks ykxw djus] vkSj mu O;fDr;ksa dh ftEesnkjh r; djus gsrq l'kDr gS tks blds fu"iknu esa ck/kk mRiUu djrs gS & dysDVj ftyk Lrj ij ujsxk ds dk;Z la;kstd gksrk gS vr% mlds Lrj ij fo'ks"k vads"k.k dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 17 dk mYya?ku dkjh gksuk ugha dgk tk ldrk & ,sls yksxksa dh dher ij bl ;kstuk dks fujFkZd ugha djuk pkfg;s tks vfu;ferrkvksa vkSj Hkz"Vkpkj esa fyIr gS & izR;FkhZx.k uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kUr dk vuqlj.k djus gsrq ck/; gS & lquokbZ dk volj nsdj u;s fljs ls vkns'k ikfjr djus gsrq Lora= gSA ¼in la[;k 14 ls 16½
;kfpdk fuLrkfjr dhA
2. It is submitted that petitioners, while working on the post of Gram Sevak-cum-Paden Sachiv had to undertake work under National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (for short 'NREGA') in Gram Panchayat, Khanpur, Panchayat Samiti, Nainwa, District Bundi. A special audit and physical verification of the work was undertaken on the instruction of District Collector-cum-District Programme Coordinator, District Bundi. The special audit and physical verification was made pursuant to the direction of the State Government as certain irregularities were shown therein, thus petitioners have been asked to pay amount shown in the impugned order dated 3.4.2012.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice as without providing an opportunity of hearing, amount is shown recoverable from petitioners. It is apart from the fact that special audit and physical verification of the work undertaken in NREGA was without a notice to petitioners. Accordingly, impugned order deserves to be set aside on the aforesaid ground alone.
4. The other argument is in reference to Section 17 of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act of 2005'). Referring to Section 17 of the Act of 2005, it is submitted that social audit can be conducted only in terms of the Act of 2005. Thus, direction of the State Government for special audit through the Collectors – cum - District Programme Coordinators becomes illegal. The State Govt. or its agencies are not empowered to undertake special audit or physical verification, thus special audit at the instance of the Collector, Bundi becomes illegal.
5. Other than two grounds narrated above, no other ground has been raised for my consideration.
6. I have considered the submissions made above and perused the record carefully.
7. Firstly, I am dealing with second issue i.e. in reference to Section 17 of the Act of 2005. According to learned counsel for petitioners, other than Gram Shabha, nobody is having power or authority to hold audit/special audit. Since a reference of Section 17 of the Act of 2005 has been made, thus same is quoted hereunder for ready reference:-
17. (1) The Gram Sabha shall monitor the execution of works within the Gram Panchayat.
(2) The Gram Sabha shall conduct regular social audits of all the projects under the Scheme taken up within the Gram Panchayat.
(3) The Gram Panchayat shall make available all relevant documents including the muster rolls, bills, vouchers, measurement books, copies of sanction orders and other connected books of account and papers to the Gram Sabha for the purpose of conducting the social audit.
8. Perusal of provision quoted above reveals that regular social audit would be done by Gram Sabha for all works done under Gram Panchayat concerned. The question is as to whether aforesaid provision excludes authority of State or Central Government to allow special audit or inquiry in regard to work of NREGA more so when funds are given by the Government. To address aforesaid issue, it would be relevant to refer few provisions of the Act of 2005. Section 4 of the Act of 2005 enjoins upon the State Government to notify scheme to give effect to provisions of Section 3 of the said Act. The State Government, accordingly, notified a scheme vide Notification dated 13.10.2005, namely, “Rajasthan Gramin Rozgar Guarantee Yojna 2006” (hereinafter referred to as 'the scheme'). Chapter-6 of the said scheme titled as “Quality Control and Evaluation” specifically emphasizes for quality control and evaluation. Para 32(2) of the said scheme empowers State Government to monitor physical and financial progress of the scheme in all Districts. Para 32(4) of the said scheme provides for quality audit at the State a
