Statutory Power to Conduct Inquiries Cannot Be Sub-Delegated Unless Specifically Authorized by Law

The Petitioner, working as a Rojgar Sahayak (Employment Assistant) at Gram Panchayat Mohandi, was removed from service via an order dated 10.03.2021 by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur.

The removal followed a complaint of financial irregularities, which led to an inquiry conducted by a team consisting of the Assistant Internal Accounts Audit Taxation Officer, Sub-Engineer, and Sub-Divisional Officer.

The Petitioner challenged the removal on the grounds that the inquiry and penalty were executed in violation of the prescribed procedural communication dated 28.09.2018 issued by the Commissioner MGNREGA.

1. Whether the removal of the Petitioner was legally sustainable given that the inquiry was conducted by a delegated team rather than the authority specified in the MGNREGA communication dated 28.09.2018

2. Whether the power to conduct an inquiry into the conduct of a Rojgar Sahayak can be sub-delegated by the Janpad CEO

The Court applied the procedural mandates laid down in the MGNREGA Commissioner’s communication dated 28.09.2018, which stipulates that upon receiving a complaint, the CEO of the Janpad Panchayat must personally conduct the inquiry and forward the report to the CEO of the Zila Panchayat, who acts as the disciplinary authority.

Delegatus non potest delegare: when a specific authority is conferred with the power to conduct an inquiry, such power cannot be sub-delegated to subordinates unless expressly authorized by statute.

The Court observed that the communication dated 28.09.2018 explicitly outlines a three-step procedure: (i) an inquiry by the Janpad CEO, (ii) forwarding of the report to the Zila CEO, and (iii) a show-cause notice and final decision by the Zila CEO.

In the present case, the Janpad CEO deviated from this by delegating the inquiry to a subordinate team of technical and audit officers via an order dated 07.12.2020. The Court held that this sub-delegation was unlawful because the power to inquire was specifically "notified or conferred" upon the CEO personally.

Consequently, since the foundational inquiry was conducted by an unauthorized body contrary to the 2018 guidelines, the resulting termination order was deemed "bad in law" and procedurally flawed.

The Petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service forthwith, though without back wages; however, the Court granted Respondent No. 3 the liberty to initiate a fresh inquiry against the Petitioner, provided it is conducted strictly in accordance with the communications dated 30.07.2014 and 28.09.2018.