IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 18623 of 2008 Between: M.Sunitha D/o.Narayana Sankhavaram Grama Panchayat Kalasapadu(M) Kadapa District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mandal Parishad Development Officer Kalasapadu,Kadapa District 2 The Project Director(N.R.E.G.S) District Water Management Agency Kadapa District 3 The District Collector Kadapa District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the impugned proc dt 2-8-2008 issued by the Mandal Parishad Development oﬃcer MP Kalasapadu Kadapa District as illegal arbitrary unjust and violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the constitution of besides being opposed to all mandatory principles of natural justice equity and fair play and consequently hold that the petitioners is entitled to continue as Field Assistant Sanhavaram G.P Kalasapadu(M) Kadapa District with all consequential benefit. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.BALA KISHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.S.I.NEWTON The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Field Assistant for Sankhavaram Village of Kadapa District. The ﬁrst respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 18.07.2008, alleging certain irregularities against the petitioner. A reply was submitted by the petitioner on 31.07.2008. The ﬁrst respondent passed an order to the eﬀect that the services of the petitioner stand terminated with eﬀect from 02.08.2008. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner presented an appeal before the second respondent on 12.08.2008. She feels aggrieved by the order of removal. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the ﬁrst respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order of removal was passed almost as a matter of course and without any basis. It is no doubt true that the ﬁrst respondent issued an order in a cyclostyle form and hardly, it reﬂects any application of mind. It is rather sad and unfortunate that the ﬁrst respondent has dealt with the career of the petitioner in such a callous manner. Before terminating the services of the petitioner, the ﬁrst respondent ought to have applied his mind to the allegations against the petitioner, the explanation offered in response to the show cause notice and ought to have arrived at a conclusion on a consideration of the same. The manner in which the order of termination was issued is certainly, an important aspect. Be that as it may, the petitioner had availed the remedy of appeal to the second respondent. It cannot be said that there was undue delay on the part of the second respondent in disposing the appeal. All the same, it cannot be kept pending for a long time, since the petitioner is out of service. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to pass appropriate orders on the appeal preferred by the petitioner, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:28.08.2008. Note: Issue cc in three days. (B/o) kdl