Statutory non-compliance and violation of natural justice in quasi-judicial enquiries vitiates findings and consequential FIR.

The petitioner, a Gram Panchayat Secretary, challenged an enquiry report dated 21.06.2023 and a consequential FIR (No. 116/2024).

A complaint was initially filed by Respondents 5 and 6 before the Lokayukta alleging that the Gram Rozgar Sahayak (GRS) forged job cards under the MGNREGS.

Notably, the complaint did not name the petitioner.

Despite this, the Ombudsman conducted an enquiry and indicted the petitioner for financial irregularities. The petitioner contended that he was only summoned as a witness, never served a copy of the complaint, and denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.

1. Whether the enquiry culminating in the report dated 21.06.2023 was conducted in compliance with the mandatory procedures of the MGNREGA Rules, 2013, and the principles of natural justice.

2. Whether an FIR founded exclusively upon a procedurally vitiated enquiry report is sustainable in law.

The Court primarily applied the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee (Appointment, Powers and Duties of Ombudsman) Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2013, specifically Rule 8 (procedure for disposal of grievances), Rule 9 (modes of service of notice), and Rule 10 (award process).

It relied on the principle that the Ombudsman performs quasi-judicial functions and must adhere to audi alteram partem.

The Court followed the precedent in Meera Devi Saxena v. State of M.P. & Others (2023), which mandates that a delinquent must be afforded a meaningful hearing, including inspection of the complaint, and Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) regarding the necessity of reasoned orders.

The Court observed that Rule 8(10) of the 2013 Rules mandates service of notice and a copy of the grievance upon any official against whom a complaint is made.

In this case, the petitioner was neither named in the original complaint nor served with a notice of investigation against him; he was merely examined as a witness.

The Court found that the Ombudsman expanded the scope of the enquiry without following the service requirements under Rule 9 or providing a reasonable opportunity for defense under Rule 10(1).

Furthermore, a lack of independent analysis or evidence connecting the petitioner to the alleged forgery rendered the report unreasoned and arbitrary. The Court reasoned that since the foundation (the enquiry report) was legally flawed, the superstructure (the FIR) could not survive.

The Court quashed the Enquiry Report dated 21.06.2023 and the consequential FIR No. 116/2024. The matter was remanded to the Ombudsman to conduct a fresh enquiry strictly adhering to Rules 8, 9, and 10 of the 2013 Rules, ensuring the petitioner is served with the complaint and granted a right to cross-examine witnesses.