The Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction to impose disciplinary actions under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act.

JUDGMENT

These three writ petitions are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these three cases by a common order.

2. The petitioners in these writ petitions are aggrieved by Ext.P1 common award of the 2^nd respondent Ombudsman in these cases, appointed as per the provisions of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act , 2005. As per the impugned common award, certain directions were issued by the Ombudsman. According to the petitioners, the 2^nd respondent does not have the power to take disciplinary action against Mates. The allegations in the complaints preferred by the 6^th and 7^th respondents does not fall within the ambit of any of the grounds mentioned in Clause 9.1 of Ext.P2 revised guidelines for appointment of Ombudsman issued by the Ministry of Rural Development Mahatma Gandhi NREGA division is the submission. It is also submitted that the 2^nd respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints preferred by respondents 6 and 7. It is also submitted that, as per Ext.P3 circular, it is the Secretary of the Panchayat who is given with the power to suspend or to decide any punishment for a Mate for nonperformance of any duties entrusted, is the submission. It is also submitted that the 6^th and 7^th respondents ought to have preferred a complaint before the 4^th respondent rather than rushing to 2^nd respondent. The petitioner relied the judgment of this Court in Padmakshi v. Secretary, Arattupuzha Grama Panchayat [2021 (5) KLT SN 6 (C.No.6)]. Hence, these writ petitions are filed.

3. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat. I also heard the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent Ombudsman.

4. The short point raised by the petitioners is that, Ombudsman has no power to impose any disciplinary action against the petitioners. This is firmly opposed by the Standing Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent. The Standing Counsel appearing for the Ombudsman submitted that, even if the petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P1, the petitioners have got an alternative remedy by way of an appeal. The Standing Counsel also submitted that, as evident by Ext.P1, in clause 8, it is stated that, “പരിഹാരങ്ങളും നിർദ്ദേ ശങ്ങളും ”. Therefore, there is no specific disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Ombudsman. The learned Standing Counsel also submitted that, when Padmakshi’s case (supra) was considered, there was no alternative remedy available against an order passed by the Ombudsman. Now, alternative remedy is available and therefore, these writ petitions are not maintainable.

5. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the respondents. This Court also perused the dictum laid down by this Court in Padmakshi’s case (supra). It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above said judgment:

“11. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State of Kerala.

12. From Ext.P1 findings of the Ombudsman, it is seen that the petitioner has admitted the irregular marking of muster roll in respect of Thankamma and Sindhu. But, the petitioner denied the allegation of marking muster roll in respect of Lekshmi Bhai and Udayamma, for their attending a procession of a political party. The Ombudsman found that there is no satisfactory reliable evidence to prove the case of the complainant as regards Lekshmi Bhai and Udayamma, but in the same breath, said the case of the complainant cannot be said to be a falsehood.

13. Be that as it may, the question arising for consideration is whether the Ombudsman appointed under the MGNREGA can proceed against the pe