Order This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein, the petitioners have prayed for quashing a communication dated 17.1.1991 whereby, the Block Development Officer, Bhabhua, respondent no. 3, pursuant to the letter of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Rohtas, respondent no. 2, bearing no. 6258 dated 29.12.1990, has communicated that henceforth all the works, either being executed or to be executed under the Jawahar Rojgar Yojana Scheme (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Scheme'), shall be carried out under the supervision of the Block Development Officer, Bhabhua. 2. Heard learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners as also the learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State. With consent of the parties, this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 3. The petitioner no. 2 is a Mukhiya of Saitha Gram Panchayat within the district of Rohtas. The main grievance is that under 'the Scheme' the Deputy Development Commissioner or the Block Development Officer has no authority to debar the petitioner from executing 'the Scheme'. It is also stated that no reason has been assigned in the impugned communication as to why the petitioner no. 2 was divested with his power to perform his duties in execution of 'the Scheme'. It is further submitted that under 'the Scheme' the Block Development Officer has not been authorised for execution of the work. According to him, where there are certain allegations against a Mukhiya in that case the work of 'the Scheme' has to be carried out by Up-Mukhiya. It is further stated that in absence of any provision in 'the Scheme' the direction of the Deputy Development Commissioner, asking the Block Development Officer, to execute 'the Scheme' cannot sustain. Apart from aforesaid it is also stated that in any view of the matter, as in the communication no reason has been assigned while restraining the petitioner no. 2 from performing his duties, the same should be quashed on this ground alone. It is stated that validity of an order has to be judged by reasons, so mentioned in it. The respondents cannot be allowed to supplement reasons through their counter affidavits. In support of this stand learned counsel has placed reliance on a case of Mohinder Singh Gill and anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, and ors, reported in A.I.R. 1978 S.C, 851. 4. The respondents cannot be allowed to supplement reasons through their counter affidavits. In support of this stand learned counsel has placed reliance on a case of Mohinder Singh Gill and anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, and ors, reported in A.I.R. 1978 S.C, 851. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein, it has been alleged that there were serious financial irregularities against petitioner no. 2 and the Panchayat Sewak in connection with execution of a work of School Building. In support of such allegations, copies of different reports, submitted by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Sub-Divisional Officer and Block Development Officer, have been annexed with the counter affidavit. It is stated that considering these reports the Deputy Development Commissioner, came to a conclusion that is was not proper to allow the petitioner no 2 and the Panchayat Sewak to proceed with the work and withdraw any amount, sanctioned for execution of the 'Scheme'. 5. A reply to the counter affidavit as also a supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioners have been filed. It is stated that all the allegations, made in the counter affidavit, against the petitioner no. 2 are baseless. In fact on a petition, filed by the petitioner, that he should be given an opportunity to submit his explanation with respect to such' allegations, the Deputy Development Commissioner has taken a decision that the matter be postponed until final enquiry is made by him. 6. Learned Advocate General, appearing for the State and official respondents, contended that from mere perusal of 'the Scheme' it would appear that power of superintendence, supervision, inspection etc. vests in the Block Development Officer. It would further appear that the District Magistrate, Deputy Development Commissioner and the Executive Engineer are authorised to form a Committee with; regard to sanction of the amount as also purchase of the materials. The Mukhiya or the' Members of the Executive Committee of the Gram Panchayat as such do not come in picture at all in execution of 'the Scheme'. As per Rule 20/1 of 'the Scheme' the only function of the Mukhiya along with the Panchayat Sewak is to issue cheques and nothing else. According to him, in a case where allegations of financial irregularities etc. As per Rule 20/1 of 'the Scheme' the only function of the Mukhiya along with the Panchayat Sewak is to issue cheques and nothing else. According to him, in a case where allegations of financial irregularities etc. against the Mukhiya or the Panchayat Sewak are brought to the notice of District authorities or the Block Development Officer, they can take an appropriate decision for proper execution of 'the Scheme'. In support of his contention, learned Advocate General placed reliance over a case of Bhanupratap Singh v. The State of Bihar and ors. reported in 1991 (1) P.L.J.R. 498 . The facts of the aforesaid case are somehow the other different. But in this case also it has been noticed that under Jawahar Rojgar Yojana, the Deputy. Development Commissioner and the Block Development officer have got power of superintendence and inspection etc. with respect to the work being executed under this Scheme. 7. In the circumstances, mentioned above, a question arises for consideration if in course of implementation/execution of 'the Scheme' allegations of misappopriation, defalcation or any kind of irregularities are brought to the notice of the local authorities, whether such authorities are empowered under 'the Scheme' to take any action against the erring person. Before answering the aforesaid, It would be relevant to notice some of "the Schemes" regarding implementation of the Jawahar Rojgar Yojana. As per Rule 10 a particular Panchayat is authorised to take decision for selection and finalisation of the Scheme. The Scheme has to be implemented by an Executing Committee duly elected in a general meeting of the Gram Panchayat. Here it would be relevant to notice that the Executive Committee of the Gram Panchayat has got no jurisdiction to interfere with the execution of the Scheme. Rule 17-2 deals with the purchases and supply of the relevant materials for the execution of the Scheme. The District Magistrate, Deputy Development Commissioner and the Executive Engineer are the concerned authorities who shall also look after, in case where the supply of the materials are made by the Government. Rule 24-12 and 26 envisages that in a case where allegations of misappropriation, defalcation or any kind of irregularities are found, the Block Development Officer, shall hold local inspection and take all appropriate steps in the interest of the Scheme. Rule 24-12 and 26 envisages that in a case where allegations of misappropriation, defalcation or any kind of irregularities are found, the Block Development Officer, shall hold local inspection and take all appropriate steps in the interest of the Scheme. He shall also send information to the District Magistrate, Deputy Development Commissioner and the Sub-Divisional Officer for their necessary action. 8. As per the submission of Mr. Roy, in a case where such eventualities arise, the local authorities will have no option but to allow the Up-Mukhiya to execute the work. In my view, there is no substance in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel So long the Mukhiya is not ousted from his office or debarred from functioning on any other ground, as per the provision of the Gram Panchayat Act, the Up-Mukhiya can not be allowed to function in place of the Mukhiya No such provision under the Jawahar Rojgar Yojana has been introduced to tackle with such eventualities. Therefore, any action which debars a Mukhiya or ousts him from his office, has to be taken as per the provision of Gram Panchayat Act. Admittedly, in the present case the Mukhiya (petitioner no. 2) has not been ousted from his office or disqualified to function as Mukhiya. In such circumstances, if the submission of the learned counsel, is accepted then it may lead to an absurd situation. It is a settled principle of law that for construction of social and benevolent pieces of scheme or legislation they should be so construed as to effectuate the purpose for which they have been so prepared, otherwise an absurd construction may frustrate the very object of such scheme. 9. Having noticed the facts, stated above, in our view, in a case where allegations of financial irregularities etc. are established against a Mukhiya or Panchayat Sewak or any other agency, the Deputy Development Commissioner or the Block Development Officer under their power of supervision and superintendence etc. of the Scheme are competent to take proper action against erring persons. Under such circumstances they can also assume jurisdiction to execute the work according to the procedure, prescribed under 'the Scheme'. It has been noticed, that under the Rules of the Scheme only power of the Mukhiya is to issue cheques along with the Panchayat Sewak. of the Scheme are competent to take proper action against erring persons. Under such circumstances they can also assume jurisdiction to execute the work according to the procedure, prescribed under 'the Scheme'. It has been noticed, that under the Rules of the Scheme only power of the Mukhiya is to issue cheques along with the Panchayat Sewak. Neither he nor any member of the Executive Committee of the Gram Panchayat comes in picture in execution of the Scheme. In case of Bhanupratap Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and ors, (supra) also their Lordships have observed that in a case where there is an allegation of misappropriation defalcation etc., as laid down under Rule 24-12 of the Scheme, the concerned authorities should without any hesitation, take immediate action against the person concerned. 10. Taking entire facts into consideration we hold that in a case where the allegations of misappropriation, defalcation etc. are found, the District Magistrate, Deputy Development Commissioner or the Block Development Officer have got complete jurisdiction to issue directions restraining the erring persons from performing their work under 'the Scheme'. 11. The next question arises for consideration, whether in absence of any reason, disclosed in the impugned communication, for divesting the petitioner from executing 'the Scheme', the impugned communication can sustain in eye of law. After hearing the learned Advocates on this issue, we have also perused the impugned communication. True it is that no reason or ground has been assigned, why the petitioner was restrained from performing his duties as also what was the ground for which the Block Development Officer was directed to take over charge, for execution of the Scheme. Several allegations have been made against the petitioner no. 2 in the counter affidavit. According to the learned Advocate, the Deputy Development Commissioner in his report has himself indicated that no criminal action should be taken against the petitioner unless proper enquiry was conducted by him. We have noticed, though there are several allegations against petitioner no 2 in the counter affidavit but nothing has been said in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has already drawn our attention towards a decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, and ors., reported in A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 851. Learned counsel for the petitioner has already drawn our attention towards a decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, and ors., reported in A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 851. It is well settled that an order, adverse to the interest of any person, must be supported with reasons. In the background of the facts of the present case, obviously the petitioner no. 2 has been debarred from executing the Scheme on the basis of different allegations. In such a situation it was proper for the authorities to pass a reasoned order, enabling the petitioner to explain the circumstance. 12. We have already noticed the statement, made in the counter affidavit, with respect to different allegations made against the petitioner no. 2, Therefore it would not be proper to quash the impugned orders. However, in the circumstances we direct the Deputy Development Commissioner (respondent no. 2) to examine the matter afresh, after giving proper opportunity to petitioner no. 2 and pass a reasoned order. If upon consideration the Deputy Development Commissioner (respondent no. 2) comes to the conclusion that the allegations, levelled against petitioner no. 2 were unfounded, he will recall the impugned order without any delay. For final disposal of the matter, we fix a time limit of two months from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order. 13. With the aforesaid findings and directions this writ application is disposed of.