IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.19216 OF 2011 Date:18.07. 2011 Between:- Menda Govinda Rao .. Petitioner And The District Collector, Srikakulam District at Srikakulam and others. .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.19216 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings Rc.No.567/EGS/E3/2010, dated 16.06.2011, issued by respondent No.3 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, set aside the same and direct the respondents to reinstate him into service with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner has been appointed as Field Assistant to work in the office of Mandal Parishad Development Officer/Programme Officer, N.E.R.G.S., Polaki Mandal, Srikakulam District-respondent No.3 in the month of September, 2008 and has been discharging duties as such. Subsequently, he was removed from service by respondent No.3 on the ground that he had not taken steps to issue job cards to the eligible persons of Mabagam Gram Panchayat, Polaki Mandal before 07.05.2011. No notice was issued nor any enquiry was conducted before issuing the impugned proceedings. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no notice was issued to the petitioner before termination of his services and hence, prays to set aside the impugned proceedings. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue contended that an alternative remedy of appeal is provided for and the petitioner has to approach the appellate authority for his redressal. 5. 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. One of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no notice was given before issuing the termination proceedings. As seen from the termination proceedings, it is clear that the petitioner was called upon to give an explanation vide proceedings, dated 16.05.2011, for which, there was no reply. Therefore, the impugned proceedings were issued. As the petitioner has not given any reply, it cannot be said that there is violation of principles of natural justice. 6. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the District Collector, Srikakulam District, respondent No.1, who is the statutory authority. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 18th July, 2011. AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.19216 OF 2011 Date:18.07.2011 AMD