18 th April, 2024 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief:

“It is, therefore, prayed this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule NISI in the nature of writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the impugned order dated 22.09.2018 vide Annexure-

9 and office order No. 537 dated 13.02.2020 vide Annexure-13 of opp.party no.1 passed in Misc. Case No. 34/2018 shall not be quashed and to reinstate him back to his position as he held since the date of passing of impugned order vide Annexure-9, along with all consequential service benefits and arrear dues.

AND/OR If the opp.parties fail to show cause and/or show insufficient or false cause, make the said rule NISI absolute.”

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged as Gram Rozgar Sevak(GRS) in Khairapalli Gram Panchayat in the district of Nayagarh. As per engagement order issued on 22.09.2018, he was entrusted with the work of MGNREGS as per job chart issued in his favour. One Panchayat Samiti member of the said Gram Panchayat brought to notice certain irregularities in the matter of disbursement of wages inasmuch as the wages has been allegedly paid to certain dead and non-existent persons. An enquiry was conducted by the Additional Programme Officer, MGNREGA, Ranpur, who submitted his report on 15.02.2018. In the said report, he specifically held that the relevant particulars of the beneficiaries in the concerned records/registers had been filled up by the concerned Mate and that the petitioner being the GRS was, at the relevant time, assigned with another Gram Panchayat. The petitioner was called upon to show cause, against which he submitted his detailed explanation, inter alia, taking the stand that at the relevant time he was assigned with the duties of another Gram Panchayat. The Collector vide order dated 22.09.2019 (copy enclosed as Annexure-9) in Misc. Case No. 34 of 2018, initiated on the basis of the complaint lodged by Dusasan Jena, Panchayat Samiti Member held that as per the enquiry report certain irregularities were found to have committed in the execution of MGNREGS project. Accordingly, direction was issued, inter alia, to disengage the petitioner and the Mates involved in the concerned MGNREGS project. Pursuant to such order, another order of disengagement was issued by the Collector on 13.02.2020 (copy enclosed as Annexure-13)

3. Mr. Pranaya Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was never noticed to appear before the Collector in the complaint filed by said Dusasan Jena. The order therefore, was passed entirely behind his back. That apart, the Collector, despite referring to the enquiry report, has ignored the specific finding of the enquiry officer that the petitioner was at the relevant time assigned with the work of another Gram Panchayat.

4. Mr. Anup Mishra, learned counsel appearing for opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 submits that as per the enquiry report, the irregularities in the execution of MGNREGS projects was clearly established. He however, fairy concedes that the petitioner had not been heard before passing of the impugned order under Annexure-9 by the Collector. Nevertheless he submits that the order of the Collector is appelable. Mr Mishra further raises a preliminary objection against the petition questioning its maintainability in light of the comprehensive guidelines dated 06.04.2018, which prescribes the Director, Special Projects as the Appellate Authority. It is submitted that the petitioners ought to have preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority within 30 days against the order of the Collector-cum-CEO, Zilla Parishad instead filing this writ petition. It is true that in the presence of an alternative remedy, the wr