ORDER

Heard learned counsel Sri.K.Prasad Hegde for petitioner; Sri.M.B.Santhosh Kumar, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri.B.J.Somayaji for respondent Nos.2 to 5. No representation for respondent Nos.6 to 8. Perused the writ petition papers.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure-A/order dated 30.09.2015 of the Ombudsman, Ramanagara Zilla Panchayat, wherein the petitioner and two others are directed to remit a sum of Rs.78,236.33 for using JCB machine for NREGA work; Annexure-B, the order dated 25.06.2016 passed by the Karnataka Ombudsman Appellate Authority wherein it is ordered to recover the amount from the petitioner and President of Grama Panchayat for using JCB machine for NREGA work.

3. Learned counsel Sri.Prasad Hegde would contend that the Ombudsman as well as Ombudsman Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to impose penalty or issue any direction. Placing reliance on the order dated 09.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.41579/2015 and connected writ petitions of the co-ordinate Bench would submit that the orders passed by the authorities under Annexures-A and B are only recommendatory and it is open for the State Government or the authority empowered, either to accept the recommendation or to reject the same.

4. Learned counsel Sri.B.J.Somayaji for respondent Nos.2 to 4 would not dispute the said legal position.

5. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.41579/2015 and other connected matters by order dated 09.09.2022 at paragraphs 3 and 4 has held as follows:

3. learned counsel for the parties fairly submits that the issue, “Whether the order passed by the Ombudsman is recommendatory or not”? was considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.20697/2019 disposed of on 23.03.2022 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has filed as follows:

6. Having gone through the revised instructions on Ombudsman dated 24.05.2013 at Annexure-J and more particularly Clause-13, this Court finds that the Ombudsman and the Appellate Authority are only required to give their findings in a speaking order and directions to the concerned MGNAREGA authority even in the matter of disposal and punitive action against a person. In Clause 14, it is provided that the State Government shall set up a system within the nodal department to monitor the action taken on the findings of the Ombudsman. Therefore, even as per the subsequent guidelines dated 24.05.2013, it is clear that the findings of the Ombudsman and the appellate authority are only recommendations. Ultimately it is the State Government or any other system established by the State Government to take further action pursuant to the recommendation of the Ombudsman, that could proceed to consider the findings of the Ombudsman.

4. Consequently, these writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the observations made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court stated supra, while specifically holding that the impugned orders vide Annexure-a in both are petitions are only recommendations. The State Government or any other authority empowered under the MGNAREGA Act, 2005, may proceed to take action in accordance with law.”

6. Respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it is held that the orders at Annexure-A bearing No.gÁf¥ÀA:MA§ÄqÀìªÀÄ£ï:¹Dgï:23:2013-14 dated 30.09.2015 of the Ombudsman, Ramanagara Zilla Panchayat, as well as Annexure-B bearing No. M.ªÉÄÃ.¥Áæ.¥Àæ/63/2015-16 dated 25.06.2016 of the Karnataka Ombudsman Appellate Authority are held as recommendatory in nature. It is open for the competent authority to initiate further action based on such recommendation.

With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.