ORDER 30.04.2014 - Heard Mr. C. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate. The petitioner has filed this application challenging the order of disengagement passed by the opposite party No.2, Collector-cum-DPC MGNREGS, Balasore under Annexure-7 dated 18.06.2012. Mr. C.Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner states that action of the authorities is arbitrary, unreasonableness, inasmuch as the order passed under Annexure-7 is in non-compliance to the provisions contained under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (in short the MGNREG Act). Therefore, he seeks for quashing of the same. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate states that the project namely "Improvement of Road from Ichhapur Railway Bridge to Hatipada Tank" was taken up under MGNREG Scheme for the year 2011-12. The Project was initiated from the Gram Panchayat, Bahanaga. The Sarapanch, Bahanaga Gram Panchayat issued a work order in favour of Sri Pradyumna Kumar Samantaray, Gram Sanjojak No.2. During the period, the petitioner-Sri Haramohan Samantaray worked as a Gram Rojgar Sevak (GRS) in Bahanaga Gram Panchayat. The Government of Odisha in Panchayati Raj Department had directed the Project Director DRDA, Balasore to conduct an enquiry regarding the irregularities committed in the aforesaid MGNREG Project. Therefore, the Addl. Project Director (Admn.) DRDA, Balasore had conducted an enquiry and submitted his report vide Annexure-A/3. Basing on his record, the Collector and District Project Coordinator vide his letter dated 2193/DRDA dt. 01.05.2012, called upon the petitioner to show cause by 02.06.2012 as to why he shall not be disengaged/penalized under Section 25 of MGNREG Act, -for non-compliance to the provision of the said act in letter and spirit. In compliance to the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his reply. But without considering the same, in proper prospective, the impugned order under Annexure-7 has been passed disengaging the petitioner from service in exercise of power conferred under Clause (4) of MGNREG Grievance Redressal Rules-2010, Sub-clause (c), Clause (5) of Section 15 and Clause (2), Section 26 and 25 of MGNREG Act, 2005. Therefore, it is stated that since the order has been passed in due compliance of the said act, no illegality has been committed by the Authority for disengaging the petitioner from service. Therefore, it is stated that since the order has been passed in due compliance of the said act, no illegality has been committed by the Authority for disengaging the petitioner from service. On perusal of the record, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the project "Improvement of Road from Ichhapur Railway Bridge to Hatipada Tank" was taken up under MGNREG Scheme for the year 2011-12 in village Krushnapur under Bahanaga Gram Panchayat under Bahanaga Block. In this connection, the Sarapanch, Bahanaga Gram Panchayat issued a letter No. 20 dated 03.04.2012 to Grama Sanjojak No.1-Smt. Sabitri Upadhyaya, W/o- Pradeep Kumar Upadhyaya to receive the work order but the statement of villagers and Ward Member, on the back side of the said letter reveals that Smt. Sabitri Upadhyaya does not stay in the village. Therefore, later on the Sarapanch, Bahanaga in a Grama Panchayat meeting passed resolution dated 15.04.2012 conducted at "Jamabasuli Prangana" in the presence of members of MGNREG village Monitoring Committee, Ward Member & villagers and resolved that the 2nd Grama Sanjojak-Sri Pradyumna Kumar Samantaray would be issued with the work order as the 1st Grama Sanjojaka-Smt. Sabitri Upadhyaya was not the permanent resident of the village and as such there is no person to look after the work. Therefore, the work order was issued in favour of Sri Pradhyumna Kumar Samantaray by the Sarapanch Bahanaga to work as a Grama Sanjojak and to look after the project. On receipt of such allegation, from the Government regarding irregularities committed in the project, the same was enquired into by the Addl. Project Director, (Admn.) DRDA, Balasore, who noticed irregularities i.e. the transparency pillar has not been put up at the work site, printed E-Muster Roll was not kept in the work site to check the attendance of the labourers which is to be verified by the GRS, work executed from 04.05.2012 as per Muster Rolls but work measurement was not done and bill was not paid till date and disciplinary action to be initiated against the GRS and the VLW. Basing upon such report, the Collector and District Project Coordinator, MGNREG, Balasore issued show cause notice to the petitioner and after due enquiry, it is stated that the petitioner is no way connected for the project concerned, rather one Sri Pradyumna Kumar Samantaray, who has been working as Grama Sanjojaka No.2, was directed to discharge his duty. If any irregularities found out by the competent authority, the person under whom the work was done, should be responsible. But Without application of mind, the proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner who is no way connected with the project work and ultimately he has been disengaged under Sub-clause (c), Clause (5) of Section 15 and Clause (2), Section 26 and 25 of MGNREG Act, 2005. But the provision contained under the said section, it appears that except Section 25 there is no other provision for imposition of such penalty. The said provisions reads as follows: "Penalty for non-compliance - Whoever contravenes the provisions of this Act shall on conviction be liable to a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees." Even applying the provision contained under Section 25 of the MGNREG Act, 2005 assuming that the petitioner has any lapse or irregularities then the petitioner is liable to pay fine which may extent to Rs. 1,000/-. But without considering the same, the Authority has passed the order disengaging him from service which is not contemplated under the said Act. However, the petitioner having not been engaged as Grama Sanjojak in the project for which enquiry has been conducted, action taken against him is absolutely based on no materials, as such the same is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. In that view of the matter, this Court sets aside the order passed by the Authority under Annexure-7 imposing penalty of disengaging from service and directs the authority to re-engage the petitioner forthwith within a period of 15 days from the communication of the order. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of.