HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI W.P. No. 10882 OF 2009 Thursday, the Eighth day of July, Two Thousand and Ten Between V.Raj Kumar Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Principal Secretary, Panchayath Raj and Rural Development, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others Respondents THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI W.P. NO. 10882 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER: The proceedings dated 06.05.2009 issued by the second respondent terminating the services of the petitioner as Additional Programme Officer, is assailed in this writ petition. The petitioner, after undergoing selection process, was selected as Additional Programme Officer on 5.6.2006 for a fixed tenure of two years and an agreement was also entered into. Thereafter the petitioner was posted in the office of the Mandal Praja Parishad, Yeldurthy in Medak District and later he was transferred and posted to work as Carteographer in DWMA Office which, according to the petitioner is totally unconnected with the post of Additional Programme Officer. It is stated that the second respondent has issued show cause notice dated 16.3.2009 calling for his explanation as to why the contract should not be terminated for the misappropriation of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme funds to the tune of Rs.8.5 lakhs, to which the petitioner submitted tentative explanation dated 28.4.2009 seeking time, but the second respondent, without granting time passed the impugned order terminated the services of the petitioner. The respondents filed detailed counter affidavit. On page 7 of the counter filed by respondent No.2 it is stated that the there is charge of misappropriation of Rs.8,40,063/- leveled against the petitioner and his duties include to manage funds released for Capacity Building and other specific purpose and shall have to account for the same, apart from reviewing the work of Computer Operators, Technical Assistants, Field Assistants, etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner specifically contends that when the petitioner is charged for the alleged misappropriation of Rs.8.5 lakhs as evidenced from the show cause notice dated 16.3.2009, the observation of the second respondent in the order impugned, directing the Project Director, Medak to assess the misappropriation of funds caused by the petitioner to take appropriate legal action to recover the misappropriated funds, does not fit in. He contends that before quantifying the alleged misappropriation, the impugned order is passed, which cannot be legally sustained and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is true that the show cause notice dated 16.3.2009 alleges misappropriation of Rs.8.50 lakhs by the petitioner, for which he was called upon to submit explanation. When such is the case, the final order dated 6.5.2009 passed by the second respondent, which is impugned in this writ petition, directing the Project Director, Medak to assess the misappropriation funds caused by the petitioner, goes contrary to the show cause notice and gives an impression that the final order was passed without any assessment. Consequently, the order impugned in this writ petition is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed afresh with regard to the enquiry in accordance with law, if they so desire. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari July 8, 2010 MAS