Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of this writ petition, prayer has been made to issue writ of certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 18.5.2016 issued by respondent No. 3/District Panchayat Raj Officer, Saharanpur as well as consequential citation dated 22.8.2016 issued by respondent No. 6/Tehsildar, Behat, District Saharanpur.

3. Through charge-sheet dated 18.5.2016, issued by the respondent No. 3, the petitioner has been required to file his reply within a week with regard to irregularities committed in the performance of work under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Gaurantee Act, 2005 (In short MNREGA) with direction to deposit 1/3 amount of Rs. 2,68,254/- i.e. Rs. 89,410/-. In absence of reply it has also been ordered to take disciplinary action against the petitioner whereas by the consequential citation the petitioner has been required to deposit of Rs. 89,410/- alongwith interest.

4. While assailing the notice and citation learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned notice is without jurisdiction as the respondent No. 3 has no authority to scrutinize the work under the MNREGA scheme. In his submissions, for irregularities committed in performance of work under the MNREGA there is separate provision and the respondent No. 3 is not ombudsman within the meaning of MNREGA.

5. The petitioner happened to be Pradhan of the village Panchayat Salarpura, Block Gangoh, District Saharanpur and continued as such till the year 2015 when new election took place. In his submissions, the impugned notice has been issued in a proceeding under Section 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchyat Raj Act, 1947 (in short the Act) and the said proceeding cannot be allowed to continue against the petitioner as the aforesaid proceeding is meant for removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members and once the term of the Pradhan has expired the proceeding ought to have been dropped.

6. So far as first submission is concerned, from the perusal of the impugned charge-sheet/notice it transpires that the charge is related to the performance of work under the MNREGA. In the aforesaid Act a complete mechanism has been provided under para 10.1 to 10.7 for filing complaint regarding irregularities committed in the performance of work under the MNREGA, which deals with procedure of filing of complaint as under :

10. Procedure for filing the complaint

10.1 Any person, who has a grievance against the MNREGA Authority, may, himself or through his authorised representative, make a complaint against the MNREGA Authority in writing to the Ombudsman or to any MNREGA authority superior to the authority complained against.

10.2 the complaint shall be duly signed by the complainant and his authorised Representative, if any, and shall state clearly the name and address of the complainant, the name of the office and official of the Nodal Department against whom the complaint is made, the facts giving rise to the complaint supported by documents, if any, relied on by the complainant and the relief sought from the Ombudsman.

10.3 A complaint made through electronic means shall also be accepted by the Ombudsman and a print out of such complaint shall be taken on the record of the Ombudsman.

10.4 A printout of the complaint made through electronic means shall be signed by the complainant at the earliest possible opportunity before the Ombudsman takes steps for disposal.

10.5 The signed printout shall be deemed to be the complaint and it shall relate back to the date on which the complaint was made through electronic means.

10.6 No complaint to the Ombudsman shall lie if the complaint is in respect of the same subject-matter which was disposed by the office of the Ombudsman in any previous proceedings whether or not received from the same complainant or alongwith any one or more complainants or any one or more of the parties concerned