ORDER : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 20-10-2020 whereby and whereunder, the petitioner's (appellant herein) writ petition – W.P.(S)No.4191/2020 has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge finding no merit. 2. The aforesaid challenge arises in the following factual backdrop:– 3. The writ appellant herein is presently working and holding the post of Principal at Industrial Training Institute, Korba. In the year 2010, a recruitment process was carried out by the Department of Skill Development and Technical Education, Government of Chhattisgarh, for filling up the posts of Training Officer in various Industrial Training Institutes in the State of Chhattisgarh which was completed in the year 2013. However, one of the unsuccessful candidates made a complaint before respondent No.1 – Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog that one Mr. A.K. Soni, who was the head of the Selection Committee, has not followed the applicable rules for recruitment on the said post and some ineligible candidates were called for interview. The said complaint was registered as Case No.43/2014 in the said complaint case, on 10-9-2014, order Annexure P-3 (in the writ petition) was passed by the Lok Aayog that against Mr. A.K. Soni, Joint Director-cum-former Director, and against the other concerned persons, misconduct is duly proved and a direction was issued to the State Government for initiation of departmental inquiry forthwith and inform to the Lok Aayog about the resultant proceeding within three months. Thereafter, on 16-9-2015 (Annexure P-4 in the writ petition), the matter was again taken up by the Lok Aayog and the Lok Aayog issued notice with show cause to the writ petitioner / writ appellant herein vide letter dated 18-9-2015 (Annexure P-5 in the writ petition). The aforesaid show cause notice was replied by the writ petitioner vide letter dated 30-9-2015 (Annexure P-6 in the writ petition). However, nothing could be heard thereafter from the petitioner and result of the proceeding was not informed to the petitioner. However, the State Government issued charge-sheet to the petitioner on 18-3-2016 on the basis of direction dated 10-9-2014 issued by the Lok Aayog and ultimately, on 20-9-2018, the State Government decided to institute departmental inquiry against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions contained in the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 on the basis of direction / order dated 10-9-2014 passed in Complaint Case No.43/2014. 4. 4. Against the order dated 20-9-2018, the writ appellant herein had already preferred a writ petition – W.P.(S) No.3053/2019 which was pending consideration separately, however, on 15-9-2020, the writ appellant herein had preferred W.P.(S) No.4191/2020 questioning the order dated 10-9-2014 and the entire proceeding before this Court, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge summarily holding that the Lok Aayog has not passed any observation till date and the petitioner / writ appellant herein has been served with notice by the Lok Aayog and the writ petition filed by the petitioner suffers from delay & laches, as the petitioner has been served with notice by the Lok Aayog only on 18-9-2015 and the writ petition has been preferred on 15-9-2020 against which this writ appeal has been preferred. 5. Mr. Syed Majid Ali, learned counsel appearing for the writ appellant herein, would submit that the Lok Aayog is a recommendatory body and before issuing show cause notice dated 16-9-2015 to the writ appellant, imperative direction dated 10-9-2014 to the State Government to hold departmental inquiry and inform the Lok Aayog within three months from the date of order has already been passed by the Lok Aayog therefore, the show cause notice dated 16-9-2015 is a foregone conclusion and once the Lok Aayog has already applied its mind to the facts of the case and mandatory direction has been issued and even the State Government has acted upon the said direction by issuing show cause notice and by instituting departmental inquiry on 20-9-2018, the position is irreversible and therefore order dated 10-9-2014 and proceedings deserve to be quashed, but the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition summarily on the ground of delay & laches which is unsustainable and bad in law. 6. Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog / respondent No.1, would support the impugned order and submit that considering the misconduct on the part of the appellant, the Lok Aayog is absolutely justified in issuing direction to the State Government for taking cognizance of the alleged misconduct and to hold departmental inquiry against the appellant which is strictly in accordance with law and as such, the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. Amrito Das, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State / respondent No.2, would firstly submit that the impugned direction was issued on 10-9-2014 & 16-9-2015 and thereafter, the writ petition has been filed on 15-9-2020, as such, the petition suffers from delay and laches, and he would rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Chairman/ Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and other v. Ram Gopal, (2021) 13 SCC 225, S. S. Balu and another v. State of Kerala and others, (2009) 2 SCC 479 and New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh and others, (2007) 9 SCC 278 to buttress his submission. He would further submit that the note sheets recorded by the Lok Aayog on 10-9-2014 & 16-9-2015 were within its jurisdiction and there is no illegality on the part of the Lok Aayog to have made recommendation to the concerned Department to inquire into the alleged misconduct which is prima facie evident on the face of record. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. Complaint Case No.43/2014 was registered by the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog at the behest of an unsuccessful candidate alleging misconduct in the recruitment process held in the year 2010 for filling up the posts of Training Officer in various Industrial Training Institutes of the State of Chhattisgarh in which the Lok Aayog by its order dated 10-9-2014 issued imperative directions to the State Government to hold disciplinary proceedings against the persons involved therein, which state as under: - fnukad 10@09@2014 i{kksa dks lquk tk pqdk gS vkSj lEiw.kZ i=koyh dk v/;;u fd;k x;kA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls f'kdk;rdrkZ }kjk dh fd;k x;k f'kdk;r fl) gksrk gSA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ,oa izfri{kh rFkk mlls lacaf/kr vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk Hkjrh izfØ;k esa Nkuchu lfefr] p;u lfefr us v;ksX; O;fDr;ksa dks lk{kkRdkj gsrq cqyk;k] Jh ,-ds- lksuh] la;qDr lapkyd] jkstxkj ,oa izf'k{k.k us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd 26 yfuZax yk;lsal /kkjh vkosndksa dks l'krZ lk{kkRdkj esa 'kkfey djk;k x;k] ftlesa 16 vkosndksa dk p;u gqvkA ;ksX;rk ds laca/k esa foKkiu fnukad 01-09-2010 ds vuqlkj vfuok;Z ;ksX;rk LFkk;h yk;lsal Fkh] u fd yfuZax yk;lsalA vr% ftu O;fDr;ksa us fnukad 01-09-2010 ds ckn yk;lsal izkIr fd;s] mUgsa p;u esa lfEefyr djuk rFkk mudh fu;qfDr djuk] blls Jh ,-ds- lksuh rFkk vU; lacaf/kr O;fDr;ksa dk malafide fl) gksrk gSA yfuZax yk;lsal/kkjh vkosndksa dk p;u fof/k ds vuqlkj voS/k gSA yfuZax yk;lsal dks eksVj Oghdy ,DV] 1988 ds vuqlkj yk;lsal/kkjh ugha ekuk tkrkA vr% izfri{kh rFkk vU; lHkh lacaf/kr vf/kdkjh voS/k :i ls v;ksX; vkosndksa dks fdlh fo'ks"k mn~ns'; ls] tks ;ksX;rk/kkjh ugha Fks] mudks lk{kkRdkj gsrq p;u izfØ;k esa Hkkx ysus gsrq cqyk;k rFkk mudk p;u fd;kA f'kdk;rdrkZ rFkk vU; ;ksX;rk/kkjh O;fDr;ksa dks mUgksaus lk{kkRdkj gsrq tku&cw>dj ugha cqyk;k] rkfd vius eupkgs O;fDr;ksa dks cqykdj p;u fd;k tk ldsA Jh ,-ds- lksuh] la;qDr lapkyd rFkk rRdk- lapkyd o vU; lacaf/kr O;fDr tks bl fu.kZ; esa lfEefyr Fks] ds fo:) vopkj fl) gksrk gSA muds fo:) vopkj fl) gksus ds dkj.k fu;ekuqlkj 'kklu Lrj ij foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh vfoyEc izkjaHk dh tkos ,oa dh xbZ dk;Zokgh ls vk;ksx dks 03 ekg esa lalwfpr fd;k tkosA lgh@& izeq[k yksdk;qDr 10. A focused perusal of order dated 10-9-2014 (Annexure P-3) would show that the Lok Aayog has already formed a conclusive opinion that Mr. A.K. Soni and other persons, who had taken decision in the impugned recruitment, have committed proven misconduct and consequently, directed the State Government for holding departmental proceedings against the officials involved therein and thereafter, only on 16-9-2015/18-9-2015, vide Annexure P-4/Annexure P-5, show cause notices were issued to the writ appellant herein and other persons. A.K. Soni and other persons, who had taken decision in the impugned recruitment, have committed proven misconduct and consequently, directed the State Government for holding departmental proceedings against the officials involved therein and thereafter, only on 16-9-2015/18-9-2015, vide Annexure P-4/Annexure P-5, show cause notices were issued to the writ appellant herein and other persons. Order dated 16-9-2015 (Annexure P-4) states as under: - fnukad 16-09-2015 Jh ,-ds- lksuh us yksd vk;ksx ds le{k vkosnu i= fnukad 22-08-2015 izLrqr dj fuosnu fd;k gS fd yksd vk;ksx ds izdj.k la[;k 43@2014 ds vkns'k fnukad 10-09-2014 ds vk/kkj ij dksbZ foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh rc rd u dh tk, tc rd fd izdj.k la[;k 197@2013] 77@2014 esa tkap ijh{k.k py jgk gSA mUgksaus izdj.k la[;k 43@13 esa iqufoZpkj djrs gq;s vkns'k fnukad 10-09-2014 esa vopkj fl) vf/kdkfj;ksa esa ls mudk uke foyksfir djus dh Hkh izkFkZuk dh gSA Jh ,-ds- lksuh dks lquk x;kA ;g izdj.k vU; nks izdj.kksa ls vyx gS D;ksafd bl izdj.k esa fcuk Mªk;foax yk;lsal okys O;fDr;ksa dks lk{kkRdkj gsrq cqyk dj mUgsa fu;qfDr ns nh xbZ vkSj yk;lsal /kkjh O;fDr;ksa dks lk{kkRdkj ds fy;s cqyk;k gh ugha x;kA vU; izdj.k esa Mªk;foax yk;lsal ls lacaf/kr dksbZ ekeykk ugha gSA i=koyh ij miyC/k vfHkys[kksa ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd lqJh jatuk dVdokj] Jh lqjs'k dqekj f=ikBh rFkk Jherh ehuk x.kohj Hkh bl laca/k esa ftl le; vkosnu i=ksa ds vk/kkj ij lk{kkRdkj gsrq cqykus dh izfØ;k py jgh Fkh rc la;qDr lapkyd Fks vkSj Jh ,e-,Q- valkjh milapkyd o Jh v[rj vCckl izf'k{k.k v/kh{kd FksA i=koyh ds vuqlkj bUgha yksxksa us Hkh ik=@vik= vH;fFkZ;ksa ds lwph ds fu/kkZj.k esa Jh ,-ds- lksuh ds lkFk Hkkx fy;k vkSj lk{kkRdkj esa v;ksX; vkosndksa dks cqykus gsrq lwph vuqeksfnr dh FkhA bl izdj.k ds i=koyh ls fl) gS fd fcuk ;ksX;rk/kkjh O;fDr;ksa dks lk{kkRdkj gsrq cqyk;k x;k vkSj ;ksX;rk/kkjh O;fDr;ksa dks lk{kkRdkj ds fy;s cqyk;k gh ugha x;kA v;ksX; O;fDr;ksa dks fu;qfDr Hkh ns nh xbZA vr% yksd vk;ksx dk ;g er gS fd lqJh jatuk dVdokj] Jh lqjs'k dqekj f=ikBh] Jherh ehuk x.kohj] Jh ,e-,Q- valkjh milapkyd vkSj Jh v[rj vCckl izf'k{k.k v/kh{kd dks Hkh Jh ,-ds- lksuh ds lkFk&lkFk lquokbZ gsrq dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= tkjh fd;k tkos fd D;ksa u muds fo:) Hkh foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh djus gsrq laLrqfr dh tkos fd mudk vkosnu i=ksa ds LdwVuh rFkk lk{kkRdkj gsrq cqyk;s x;s lwph rS;kj djus esa mudk D;k ;ksxnku Fkk \ vr% Jh lksuh ds vkosnu i= ij orZeku esa dksbZ vkns'k ikfjr ugha fd;k tk jgk gSA vU; ikap yksxksa dks lquus ds i'pkr~ ;fn vko';d gksxk rks vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkosxkA Jh ,-ds- lksuh dks bl vkns'k izfrfyfi iznku dh tkdj izdj.k fnukad 30-09-2015 dks lqfuf'pr fd;k tkosA lgh@& izeq[k yksdk;qDr 11. Not only this, the State Government acting on the memo / order dated 10-9-2014 passed in Complaint Case No.43/2014 instituted departmental inquiry against the writ appellant herein and other persons by instituting formal departmental proceeding by order dated 20-9-2018 vide Annexure P-7 which the appellant herein has also challenged by filing W.P.(S)No.3053/2019. From the aforesaid narration of facts, following facts are quite established on the face of record: - 1. The Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog has already formed conclusive and final opinion that the writ appellant is guilty of misconduct in performance of his duty in the recruitment process of Training Officer held in the year 2010. 2. The Lok Aayog pursuant to order dated 10-9-2014 has directed for initiation of departmental proceeding against the other persons including the writ appellant herein. 3. The State Government acting in pursuance of order dated 10-9-2014 has already instituted departmental inquiry against other persons including the writ appellant vide order Annexure P-7 dated 20-9-2018 in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. 4. Vide order dated 16-9-2015, show cause notice has been issued to the writ appellant which he had already replied vide Annexure P-6. 12. However, the writ petition filed by the writ appellant herein has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by recording following finding in paragraph 7 of the impugned order dated 20-10-2020: - “7. The petitioner was, therefore, well aware of the fact that the proceeding is pending from the year 2015 itself. The documents which are placed on record would show that the petitioner was served with a show cause notice and the reply for the same has also been filed. It appears that no observation or orders have been passed till date by the Lok Aayog, therefore, the petitioner’s apprehension that before passing any order he should have been heard, is completely misconceived and non-bonafide. On the other hand, it shows that the petitioner has been served with notice to follow the procedure under the Adhiniyam 2002. Consequently, the Departmental Inquiry initiated by the State and the separate inquiry started by the Lok Aayog cannot be amalgamated. The petition suffers with delay and latches as petitioner was aware of show cause notice served to him in year 2015 and replied to it. Consequently, the Departmental Inquiry initiated by the State and the separate inquiry started by the Lok Aayog cannot be amalgamated. The petition suffers with delay and latches as petitioner was aware of show cause notice served to him in year 2015 and replied to it. So all of a sudden petitioner's effort to come out of slumber to stall the proceeding of Lok Aayog in 2020 can not be appreciated.” 13. A careful perusal of the aforesaid part of the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge would show that the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that no order / orders have been passed by the Lok Aayog till this date and the writ petitioner / writ appellant herein has been served with show cause notice to follow the procedure under the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog Adhiniyam, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act of 2002’) for recommending appropriate action against him and secondly, the writ petition suffers from delay and laches as the writ petitioner / writ appellant herein was served with show cause notice on 16-9-2015 / 18-9-2015 which he has replied on 30-9-2015, yet the writ petition was filed on 15-9-2020 with a delay of five years. 14. 14. The first finding which the learned Single Judge has recorded that the petitioner has been issued show cause notice in the departmental proceeding by the Lok Aayog vide Annexure P-5 to follow the procedure laid down in the Act of 2002 and no action has been taken against the petitioner, deserves to be considered in light of the fact that though the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner / writ appellant herein on 16-9-2015 / 18-9-2015 by the Lok Aayog, but before issuing show cause notice to the appellant herein, on 10-9-2014, the Lok Aayog had taken a final decision holding that misconduct on the part of the writ appellant is established and also issued mandatory direction for holding departmental proceeding against him whereupon the State Government also acting and implementing the order dated 10-9-2014, has initiated departmental proceeding against as many as 22 officers including the writ appellant herein whose name finds place at serial No.15, vide order dated 20-9-2018 (Annexure P-7) relevant portion of which states as under: - Øekad ,Q 2&17@2014@t-fu-@42 %% yksd vk;ksx }kjk lapkyuky; jkstxkj ,oa izf'k{k.k ds v/khu izf'k{k.k vf/kdkfj;ksa ds 723 inksa dh HkrhZ esa gqbZ vfu;ferrk dh f'kdk;r ij izdj.k Øekad 43@2014 iathc) djrs gq, fnukad 10-09-2014 dks tk¡p izfrosnu izLrqr fd;kA mDr izfrosnu esa dh xbZ vuq'kalk vuqlkj foHkkx ds v/khuLFk fuEufyf[kr 22 vf/kdkfj;ksa ds fo:) foHkkxh; tkap lafLFkr djrs gq, vkjksi i=kfn vyx&vyx frfFk;ksa eas tkjh fd;s x;sa%& Øekad vf/kdkjh dk uke Inuke 1 ls 14 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 15 Jh v[rj vCckl izf'k{k.k v/kh+{kd 15. In light of order dated 16-9-2014 and in view of the order of the State Government dated 20-9-2018 instituting departmental proceeding against the petitioner, the show cause notice dated 16-9-2015/18-9-2015 (Annexure P-4/Annexure P-5) no longer remains a show cause notice as prior to issuance of show cause notice, final decision finding the writ appellant herein guilty of proven misconduct has already been taken and departmental proceeding has been directed to be instituted which the State Government has also accepted and instituted departmental proceeding vide order Annexure P-7 on 20-9-2018 pursuant to order dated 10-9-2014 passed in Complaint Case No.43/2014. Since the Lok Aayog had already made up mind by order dated 10-9-2014 before giving opportunity of hearing to the writ appellant by memo dated 18-9-2015 (Annexure P-5) and accepting that order dated 10-9-2014, the State Government had already initiated full fledged departmental proceeding against him by order dated 20-9-2018, the post-decisional hearing sought to be given by the Lok Aayog vide Annexure P-5 to the writ appellant herein pursuant to its order dated 16-9-2015, is a foregone conclusion which the recommending authority have a tendency to uphold its order once the decision is taken. 16. In the matter of Shekhar Ghosh v. Union of India and another, (2007) 1 SCC 331 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that where the competent authority had already made up his mind before giving an opportunity of hearing, the post-decisional hearing is a forgone conclusion and there is tendency to uphold its order once the decision has been taken and relying upon its earlier decision, it has been held as under:- “14. A post-decisional hearing was not called for as the disciplinary authority had already made up its mind before giving an opportunity of hearing. Such a post-decisional hearing in a case of this nature is not contemplated in law. The result of such hearing was a foregone conclusion. 15. In K.I. Shephard v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 431 this Court opined: (SCC p. 449, para 16) "It is common experience that once a decision has been taken, there is a tendency to uphold it and a representation may not really yield any fruitful purpose." (See also V.C., Banaras Hindu University v. Shrikant, (2006) 11 SCC 42 .)” 17. Similarly, in the matter of Ramesh Chandra v. Delhi University and others, (2015) 5 SCC 549 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have dealt with issue, though with regard to the service dispute, but held in para 46 as under:- “46. From the aforesaid facts it is clear that the respondent first decided to punish the appellant and only thereafter a memorandum of charges was framed, show-cause notice was issued and enquiry was conducted, just to give it a colour of legal procedure.” 18. From the aforesaid facts it is clear that the respondent first decided to punish the appellant and only thereafter a memorandum of charges was framed, show-cause notice was issued and enquiry was conducted, just to give it a colour of legal procedure.” 18. Similarly, in the matter of Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2006) 12 SCC 33 , it has been held, where the statutory authority has already applied its mind and formed an opinion as regards the liability or otherwise of the appellant therein, the writ petition would be maintainable against the show cause notice and held in paras 9 to 11 as under:- “9. Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction as has been held by this Court in some decisions including State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma, (1987) 2 SCC 179 , Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, (2004) 3 SCC 440 and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28 , but the question herein has to be considered from a different angle viz. when a notice is issued with premeditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. In such an event, even if the courts directs the statutory authority to hear the matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing would not yield any fruitful purpose. (See K.I. Shephard v. Union of India (supra).) It is evident in the instant case that the respondent has clearly made up its mind. It explicitly said so both in the counter-affidavit as also in its purported show-cause notice. 10. The said principle has been followed by this Court in V.C., Banaras Hindu University v. Shrikant (supra), stating: (SCC p. 60, paras 48-49) "48. The Vice-Chancellor appears to have made up his mind to impose the punishment of dismissal on the respondent herein. A post-decisional hearing given by the High Court was illusory in this case. 49. In K.I. Shephard v. Union of India (supra) this Court held: (SCC p. 449, para 16) 'It is common experience that once a decision has been taken, there is tendency to uphold it and a representation may not really yield any fruitful purpose.'” (See also Shekhar Ghosh v. Union of India (supra) and Rajesh Kumar v. D.C.I.T., (2007) 2 SCC 181 ) 11. A bare perusal of the order impugned before the High Court as also the statements made before us in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, we are satisfied that the statutory authority has already applied its mind and has formed an opinion as regards the liability or otherwise of the appellant. If in passing the order the respondent has already determined the liability of the appellant and the only question which remains for its consideration is quantification thereof, the same does not remain in the realm of a show-cause notice. The writ petition, in our opinion, was maintainable.” 19. Returning to the facts of the case in light of the aforesaid decisions rendered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and in view of the discussion made herein-above, it is quite vivid that the Lok Aayog has already taken final decision holding the appellant herein guilty by order dated 10-9-2014 which has been acted upon and departmental inquiry has been initiated against the petitioner on 20-9-2018, therefore, notice dated 16-9-2015 is only a bare formality to complete the procedure laid down in the Act of 2002 and the rules made thereunder, rather post-decisional hearing is illusory and it would serve no purpose more particularly, order dated 10-9-2014 has not only been communicated to the employee/ appellant herein, but has also been acted upon and the appellant is facing departmental inquiry. Therefore, the finding of the learned Single Judge that show cause notice has been issued to give an opportunity of hearing to the appellant to complete the process of hearing is not a correct finding by the learned Single Judge. Further finding of the learned Single Judge that no order has been passed by the Lok Aayog is also incorrect finding, as the order has been passed on 10-9-2014 and the appellant is facing departmental inquiry in shape of order dated 20-9-2018. As such, both the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in this regard are prima facie contrary to the material available on the face of record and are liable to be set aside. 20. Even otherwise, under the scheme of the Act of 2002, the function of the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog is only advisory in nature and recommendatory in character. 20. Even otherwise, under the scheme of the Act of 2002, the function of the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog is only advisory in nature and recommendatory in character. The scheme of the Act of 2002 qua the power and jurisdiction of the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog was examined by one of us (Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.) in the matter of S.P.R. Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, AIR 2016 Chhattisgarh 93 in which it has been held that duty and function of the Lok Aayog under sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act of 2002 is only recommendatory in nature and the Lok Aayog cannot pass order directing departmental inquiry and consequent recovery against the delinquent Government servant. It has been observed as under: - “16. Thus, it appears that duty and function of the Lok Aayog after enquiry of any action in respect of the complaint received and investigated by him is recommendatory, precatory, advisory or directory in nature as it has to advise, counsel or suggest with certain course to be pursued or deposition made. 17. The duty of the Lok Aayog is recommendatory in nature, is also reinforced from the Explanation attached to sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Adhiniyam, 2002, which states that “Opinion of Lok Aayog” in relation to any complaint, including a decision, report, finding or conclusion thereon, means the opinion of the majority of its members. Therefore, it is quite vivid that the Lok Aayog has to communicate its opinion to the competent authority over the conduct of the delinquent public servant after its investigation and in no case it can be the mandate or the order of the Lok Aayog to the competent authority. It is for the competent authority to accept or not to accept that recommendation, but by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Adhiniyam, 2002, the competent authority is obliged to examine the report forwarded to it under sub-section (1) of Section 11 and to intimate to the Lok Aayog within three months from the date of receipt of the report, the action taken or proposed to be taken thereon. Further course of action is provided in sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Adhiniyam, 2002 that if the Lok Aayog is satisfied with the action taken or proposed to be taken on its recommendations, it shall close the case under information to the complainant, the public servant and the competent authority, and if in any case the Lok Aayog is of the opinion that the case so deserves, it may make a special report upon the case to the Governor and also inform the complainant. Thus, aforesaid scanning of the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 2002 will show that the role of the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog under the Adhiniyam, 2002 is only advisory and recommendatory in character and concededly not an authority empowered to issue and enforce any order by itself except submitting a report to the competent authority for appropriate action. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 28. Thus, in the instant case, the Lok Aayog has travelled beyond its jurisdiction in issuing mandate to hold departmental enquiry and recover the impugned amount from the petitioner. As stated above, duty and function of the Lok Aayog under sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Adhiniyam, 2002 is only recommendatory in nature. The Lok Aayog can make recommendations along with its findings to the competent authority to take action against the delinquent public servant, rather it can be said to be the opinion of the Lok Aayog which has to be forwarded to the competent authority for examination and it is for the competent authority, which, in the present case, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, to examine the report forwarded to it under sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Adhiniyam, 2002 and upon examination, intimate the action taken or proposed to be taken thereon to the Lok Aayog. 29. Thus, in the instant case, the Lok Aayog has failed to communicate its recommendation in the shape of report to the competent authority, rather it has communicated its order in the shape of mandate and thereby transgressed the advisory jurisdiction envisaged under sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Adhiniyam, 2002 to report its recommendation which is ex facie without jurisdiction and without authority of law. The Lok Aayog being recommendatory body is not an authority empowered to pass an order and recommendation must be seen in contradistinction to direction or mandate as held by the Supreme Court in Manohar S/o Manikrao Anchule v. State of Maharashtra and another, (2012) 13 SCC 14 . Directing departmental proceeding for recovery of loss caused to the State – proprio vigore that too by an authority which is not entitled to do so, have far-reaching civil consequences and the State/ respondent without conducting any proceeding, straightway directed recovery of the disputed amount against the petitioner.” 21. The next finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches therefore it has to be thrown out is also not acceptable to us, as the order has already been passed by the Lok Aayog on 10-9-2014 for holding departmental inquiry which the State Government has initiated vide Annexure P-7 on 20-9-2018 and thereafter the writ petition has been filed on 15-9-2020, as the appellant herein / writ petitioner had earlier also questioned initiation of departmental inquiry against him. In view of the aforesaid legal position, it cannot be held that the writ petition suffers form delay and laches, particularly, the Lok Aayog has made imperative direction in shape of order dated 10-9-2014 for holding departmental inquiry against the appellant herein / writ petitioner. 22. As such, in view of the aforesaid legal analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches and it is only the show cause notice which has been issued to the petitioner in accordance with the Act of 2002, is contrary to the facts and law available on record. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside and subsequently, order dated 10-9-2014 only to the extent of the appellant herein / writ petitioner, is also hereby set aside. 23. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and observation has been made only for deciding the writ appeal and this Court has not made any observation with regard to the other persons or who are not party to this proceeding. 24. The writ appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above, but without imposition of costs.