THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 17231 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner was employed as a Field Assistant, under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, for Gouraram village of Telakalapalli Mandal. He was issued a show-cause notice dated 21.4.2008, by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, the 4th respondent herein, pointing out certain acts and omissions, on the part of himself. It was also alleged that apart from being removed from service, the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.84,307/-. The 4th respondent passed an order dated 30.4.2008, directing removal of the petitioner from service, and for recovery of Rs.84,307/-. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 4. The grievance of the petitioner vis-à-vis the impugned order, is two-fold. The first is that he was removed from service, without conducting any enquiry; and the second is that a sum of Rs.84,307/- is sought to be recovered. So far as the first aspect is concerned, it needs to be observed that the post of Field Assistant is not part of regular civil service. The appointment itself is on contractual basis, and the question of conducting any departmental enquiry, before removal of a person holding that post, does not arise. Inasmuch as the removal of the petitioner is on certain allegations, it is mandatory that a show-cause notice is issued. In fact, such a notice has been issued, but the petitioner did not submit his explanation. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the dismissal of the petitioner from the post of Field Assistant. Coming to the recovery of amount, the grievance of the petitioner appears to be genuine. In the show-cause notice, it was mentioned that the petitioner is liable to refund a sum of Rs.84,307/-. The petitioner flatly denied his involvement. Even where any amount is to be recovered under the Revenue Recovery Act, a process of determination has to take place. In the instant case, no such determination was undertaken. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is partly allowed, upholding the termination of service of the petitioner, but directing that any recovery from the petitioner, shall be only on the basis of determination, after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ 8th August 2008 PAN