Penalty for a vexatious MGNREGA complaint set aside where it was made in good faith.

The petitioner complained to the MGNREGA Ombudsman about alleged irregularities and corruption in works executed in Village Panchayat Bisarpaarni, Surguja.

The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint as vexatious and imposed a penalty of ₹5,000; the appellate authority upheld that order.

The petitioner challenged both orders before the High Court, including the penalty and the manner in which the inquiry had been conducted.

Whether the penalty of ₹5,000 imposed on the petitioner for making a vexatious complaint should be set aside in the circumstances of the case.

Whether the Ombudsman’s dismissal of the complaint and the appellate authority’s decision required interference on the grounds raised by the petitioner.

The judgment does not identify or apply a specific statutory provision, precedent, or detailed legal test governing the Ombudsman’s inquiry or the imposition of a penalty.

The Court resolved the penalty issue on the circumstances before it, taking a lenient view in light of the petitioner’s stated basis for the complaint and the nature of the allegations.

Although the Ombudsman had found the complaint vexatious, the Court noted that the petitioner had raised allegations concerning irregularities in MGNREGA works and was stated to be an RTI activist.

It considered that the complaint was based on information received by the petitioner and that he had not acted mala fide.

On that basis, the Court exercised leniency and set aside the penalty, while cautioning the petitioner to verify information before making future complaints.

The order does not set aside the dismissal of the underlying complaint.

The petitioner was cautioned to exercise due care in future, and the Court stated that its decision was confined to the circumstances of this case and was not to be treated as a precedent for future complaints.