The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the involvement of parties in the reassessment process, especially when it directly relates to allegations against them, to uphold the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following relief:-

"(i) That a writ of certiorari may very kindly be issued and impugned inquiry dated 9.3.2012 as contained in Annexure P-1 and impugned order dated 6.8.2012 as contained in Annexure P-7 may very kindly be quashed and set aside".

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that petitioner No.1 was an elected representative of Zila Parishad, Kangra from the year 2005 to the year 2010. A scheme was introduced by the Government of India, under the nomenclatures of MNREGA. A Participatory Committee was to be constituted for the purpose of execution of the work to be undertaken by MNREGA. Petitioner No.1 was appointed as the president of the Participatory Committee, whereas petitioners No.2 to 6 were appointed as members of the said Committee. The project assigned to the said Committee was for execution of the work of construction of Kuhal from Bahanur Khad to the house of one Shri Ram Saran, in Ward No.1, Gram Panchayat, Jassour, Tehsil and District Kangra, H.P. The work is stated to have been completed in June, 2010 and payment etc. thereafter, stood released to the respective parties.

3. It appears that a complaint was filed by respondent No.5 with regard to certain alleged illegalities committed by the Participatory Committee in the course of the execution of the said work. This complaint was enquired into by respondent No.3 i.e. Ombudsman (MNREGA). Pursuant thereto, an award was announced by Ombudsman (MNREGA), dated 9.3.2012 and on the basis of the award so passed by respondent No.3, dated 9.3.2012 (Annexure P-1), respondent No.2 passed order dated 6.8.2012 (Annexure P-7), ordering recovery of an amount of Rs.1,72,198/- from the present petitioners and also imposing fine upon them. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this petition.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has primarily argued that the impugned orders i.e. the award passed by the Ombudsman, as also the subsequent order dated 6.8.2012, passed by respondent No.2, are not sustainable in the eyes of law, as the award Annexure P-1 was not passed by the Ombudsman, on the basis of the contents of the complaint and the response of the present petitioners to the said complaint, but was passed on the basis of a report submitted to the Ombudsman on his own asking, by the Block Development Officer, which has been referred to in the impugned award also as a reassessment report, which has vitiated the entire proceedings because the petitioners were neither informed that any such reassessment is being ordered nor were they associated with the process of said reassessment. Thus, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that they have been virtually condemned unheard by the Ombudsman and because the award has been announced on the basis of the reassessment report, in the preparation of which, they were not associated, the award is liable to quashed and set aside as the petitioners mandatorily had a right to be associated with the process of reassessment, because the reassessment was directly relatable to the allegations made against the present petitioners by respondent No.5. As per learned counsel, the principle of natural justice demanded that the petitioners ought to have been associated with the process of reassessment also, as any order which was to be passed by the Ombudsman, based upon the said reassessment, but obvious, was to have civil consequences as far as the petitioners were concerned. Learned Counsel has further argued that as the subsequent order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is based upon the award so passed by the Ombudsman, which is per-se is illegal, the subsequent order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and therefore, the same is also liable to be quashed and set aside.

5. Though, learned Assistant Advocate General has not been able to demonstrate from the record that the petitioners were a