IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.13220 OF 2011 Date:14.07.2011 Between:- Y.Akki Reddy .. Petitioner And The District Collector, Prakasam District, Prakasam and others. .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.13220 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3 in passing the orders in proceedings in R.C.No.D4/303/2011, dated 31.03.2011, removing the petitioner from the post of Field Assistant of Vinjavarthipadu Grampanchayath of Konakanametla Mandal, Prakasam District, even though he is not having the jurisdiction and without conducting any enquiry as required to be conducted as per the guidelines formulated in W.P.No.14121 of 2009, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondent authorities to continue the petitioner in the said post. 2. The petitioner has been appointed as Field Assistant under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (for short, ‘the Scheme’) and posted to work at Vinjavarthipadu Village on 23.10.2006 and working as such. Subsequently, he was terminated from service by respondent No.3-The District Additional Programme Officer-cum- Project Director on the ground of misappropriation of an amount of Rs.1,199/- vide the impugned order. Respondent No.3 also directed respondent No.2-The Mandal Praja Parishad Officer to seize his cell phone for recovery of the said money and get register a First Information Report against him. Respondent No.3 has no power under the Circulars issued regarding the appointment and action to be taken against the erred Field Assistants. As per the Scheme, respondent No.2 is the competent authority to take disciplinary action and an appeal lies to respondent No.3. No enquiry was conducted by the respondents before termination and hence prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. Admittedly, an appeal is provided against the dismissal order, dated 31.03.2011, passed by respondent No.3. No doubt, an alternative remedy is not a bar to entertain a Writ Petition, but at the same time, atleast under three contingencies, viz., 1) there is clear infringement of the fundamental rights 2) violation of principles of natural justice; and 3) the person, who passed the order has no authority or jurisdiction to pass the order, the petitioner can invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the case of the petitioner does not fall under anyone of the three categories mentioned above. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file an appeal before respondent No.1, who is the statutory appellate authority. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 14th July, 2011. AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.13220 OF 2011 Date:14.07.2011 AMD