Heard Sri Sheeran Mohiuddin Alavi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 5. No one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties no.2,3,4 and 6, although, learned State counsel admits that opposite party no.2 i.e. the District Programme Coordinator, MNREGA/ Collector, District, Hardoi is required to be represented by the State counsel.
In view of order being proposed to be passed, notices to opposite parties no.3,4, and 6 are dispensed with and with consent of parties, writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
Learned counsel for petitioner has brought to notice of this Court an order dated 20.9.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.25992 (S/S) of 2019 [Vishnu Kumar Rawat and Ors. vs. Commissioner (Rural Development) Lucknow and Ors] with the submission that the order impugned in the present writ petition was also under challenge in the said writ proceeding and Coordinate Bench after considering submissions against impugned order has passed the following:
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Kumar Shukla, learned Standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
2. The petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 31.08.2019 passed by the respondents as well as the inquiry report dated 16.08.2019 so far as it pertains to the petitioners are before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that this Court in Public Interest Litigation petition namely Writ Petition No. 4002 (MB) of 2013 Inre; Sardar Husain (P.I.L) Vs. State of U.P and Ors had passed an order dated 16.05.2013, a copy of which is annexure 21 to the petition whereby the irregularities that were alleged in the work of MGNREGA scheme was required to be gone into by the District Magistrate, Hardoi taking into consideration the inquiry reports and appropriate action was to be taken in accordance with law. When the compliance was not made, a Contempt Petition No. 1045 of 2014 Inre; Sardar Hussain Vs. H.L.Gupta was filed before this Court wherein this Court vide order dated 22.07.2019, a copy of which is annexure 22 to the writ petition required the report of the three members inquiry committee to be placed before the Court with a fresh affidavit of compliance within a specified time.
4. It is contended that in pursuance thereof, the report was placed before the Court whereby the contempt petition was disposed of and thereafter the respondents after issuing a Show Cause Notice to all the three petitioners vide notices dated 21.08.2019, 24.08.2019 and 21.08.2019, copies of which are contained annexures 23 to 25 of the petition have proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 31.08.2019, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition whereby after considering the reply, the petitioners have been imposed with a recovery of Rs. 25,960/-, 25,960/- and 62,260/-.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the petitioners had submitted the reply to the Show Cause Notices vide their replies dated 24.08.2019 and 26.08.2019, copies of which are annexures 26 to 28 to the petition then the respondents were required to consider the said reply and pass a reasoned and speaking order. However, a perusal of the impugned order dated 31.08.2019 indicates that the reply of the petitioners have not been considered rather has been brushed aside summarily by observing that the petitioners in their reply have not given any evidence to negate the charge of financial irregularity. It is contended that the method adopted by the respondents in considering the reply in such a cursory manner is patently arbitrary and once the petitioners were required to submit a reply to the Show Cause Notice then it was in the fitness and fairness of things that the said reply should have been considered in proper perspective and should not have been brushed aside in such a summary manner.
6. The other ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners for challenging the said order is that though the Show Cause Notice talks about an inquiry report yet the copy of the inquiry report has also not been supplied to the petitioners and the same should also have been supplied to them in order to enable them to submit an effective reply.
7. The aforesaid factual narrative has not been disputed by Sri Vinod Kumar Shukla, learned Standing counsel. However, he submits that the plea of non supply of the inquiry report has never been taken by the respondents while submitting the reply and consequently the said objection cannot be allowed to be taken orally by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri Shukla further contends that the entire material of the inquiry report had been reproduced in the Show Cause Notice that had been given to the petitioners and consequently there does not appear that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioners. Sri Shukla, however submits with all fairness at his command that in case this Court is of the view that the reply as submitted by the petitioners has been rejected in a summarily manner then liberty be given to the respondents to proceed a fresh after giving the inquiry report and after considering the reply of the petitioners for which some suitable time may also be fixed.
8. Heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the records.
9. A perusal of the aforesaid facts as have been culled out from the pleadings on record would indicate that the petitioners have been required to give a reply to the Show Cause Notice that had been issued to all of them. The petitioners had submitted their detailed reply which has been annexed along with writ petition. However, a perusal of the impugned order dated 31.08.2019 would indicate that the reply of the petitioners has been negated in a single line by indicating that they have not come forth with any evidence to negate the charge of financial irregularity. Such a course of action which has been adopted by the respondent no. 2 i.e District Magistrate, Hardoi cannot be accepted taking into consideration the detailed reply that had been submitted by the petitioners and it was in the fitness and fairness of things that the reply should have been considered in its proper perspective dealing with the points raised in the reply.
10. Accordingly, taking into consideration the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 31.08.2019, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition so far as it pertains to the petitioners is set aside. It is provided that the petitioners would be given a copy of the inquiry report within seven days from today and their reply would also be invited by issue of a Show Cause Notice. The petitioners would submit their reply within next ten days. The respondent no. 2 i.e District Magistrate, Hardoi shall proceed to pass a reasoned and speaking order after considering the reply of the petitioners within the next fifteen days thereafter.
11. The writ petition is disposed of."
Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the reasoning of this Court as indicated in the judgment and order dated 20.9.2019 will be fully applicable in the case of petitioner as well as since the same order dated 31.8.2019 is under challenge in the present writ petition as well with the same set of facts and circumstances.
The main submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the impugned order dated 31.8.2019 has been passed without any reference to submissions made by petitioner against the show cause notice issue to her prior to passing of impugned order. It has been submitted that as has been held in the judgment and order dated 20.9.2019, it was incumbent upon the competent authority to have considered and dealt with the objections raised by petitioner following a show cause notice and failure to do so clearly vitiates the order impugned.
A perusal of judgement and order order dated 20.9.2019 passed in the case of Vishnu Kumar Rawat (supra) clearly indicates that the facts and circumstances in said writ petition are similar to be one in the present writ petition considering the fact that the same order dated 31.8.2019 is under challenge in present writ petition as well.
In view of aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to same benefit as indicated in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 20.9.2019, since impugned order clearly indicates that petitioner's version has been ignored.
Considering aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed and the benefit granted vide judgment and order dated 20.9.2019 in the case of Vishnu Kumar Rawat (supra) shall be available to the present writ petitioner as well. Impugned order dated 31.8.2019 is set aside.
Order Date :- 30.9.2019 Subodh/-