The Gujarat High Court on Friday rejected the report of an inquiry conducted by a district-level committee after finding it to be “sketchy” and “vitiated” and to have not been conducted by the competent officer, while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL ) alleging misappropriation of MGNREGA (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act) funds at Somasar village in Surendranagar. The court has ordered a fresh inquiry into the allegations.
The bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi was hearing the PIL moved by five residents of Somasar village, alleging misappropriation of funds in 2019, 2020 and 2021.
The PIL claimed that 68 people under Somasar gram panchayat were paid MGNREGA wages despite not doing any work under the scheme. It alleged that the wife of the then sitting sarpanch was shown as a recipient of MGNREGA wages for working in an anganwadi, in addition to receiving payment for being an anganwadi worker. The woman, Shakuntalaben Bhulani, is present at the Somasar village sarpanch.
Following the PIL, an inquiry was conducted by the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) by constituting a district-level committee. The report was submitted to the commissioner (Rural Development) last December.
As per the report, of the 18 works shown as completed under MGNREGA, 15 were completed and three were not taken up at all. Also, among the 68 people who were paid without them working, statements of 38 could be recorded by the committee. They told the committee that they have performed the work entrusted to them and received payment for the same. The statement of Bhulani was also recorded, where she stated that she worked at an anganwadi center during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The HC, however, observed that the committee had “not properly examined” the allegations. It noted, “…from the averments made in the affidavit (by deputy secretary of the rural development department, presenting the inquiry report) it is not understandable how the wife of the sitting sarpanch was engaged as worker under MNREGA scheme even if the situation was of Covid-19. There is no clarity with regard to other beneficiaries (30) who were paid against whom allegations are made.”
“The inquiry report submitted by the district level committee, dated 22.12.2023, is found sketchy and therefore, is rejected herein,” it added.
Observing that the Gujarat Panchayats Act provides for removal of sarpanch if found guilty of misconduct, the court held that “the grievance of the petitioner that the wife of the sitting sarpanch could not have been paid wages under MNREGA 2005…is required to be examined” .
Referring to the provisions pertaining to grievance redressal mechanism and disposal of complaints in MNREGA and the rules therein – namely Gujarat State Employment Guarantee Rules, 2008 – the court also recorded that there was no need for a district-level committee to probe the allegations and instead the grievance redressal officer ought to have investigated the same.
The HC said, “We are therefore also of the view that there was no occasion for DRDA to constitute a district-level committee and rather the complaint ought to have been examined by the officer authorized (district program coordinator at the district-level has been assigned the duties as grievance redressal officer).”
“In the instant case, the complaint of the petitioner has not been examined by the competent officer, rather he had put his seal over the report of the district-level committee dated 22.12.2023, which has been rejected by us. Entire inquiry was vitiated for not following the procedure prescribed in… Rules 2008 and has not been done by the competent officer,” it added.
Ordering for a fresh inquiry into the complaints, the court permitted the petitioners to submit their complaint before the district program coordinator (grievance redressal officer) at the district level within two weeks, along with a copy of the court’s order. It also directed that the officer should complete the inquiry within two months “strictly in accordance with law and provide due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner during the course of inquiry”.