IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27046 of 2008 Between: Miss. G. Sabitha Rani & others. … Petitioners AND The District Collector/ District Project Coordinator, NREGS, DWMA, Kurnool District, Kurnool, & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Panchayat Raj This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27046 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in continuing the petitioners under suspension under order dated 18.07.2008 despite submission of report by the Assistant Project Director on 01.09.2008, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for the respondents. On the allegation that funds under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme were misappropriated, three Technical Assistants were kept under suspension by separate orders passed on 18.07.2008 by respondent No.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners claimed that the Assistant Project Director, Atmakur constituency, DWMA, Atmakur, who was entrusted with holding a detailed enquiry, submitted his report under Rc.No.(1) NREGS/2008 dated 01.09.2008 to respondent No.2, that in the said report he mentioned that the petitioners have not committed irregularities and that the said officer requested respondent No.2 to revoke the suspension orders of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the three Technical Assistants, referred to in the said enquiry report, are the petitioners herein and that in view of the abovementioned report, wherein the petitioners are cleared of the allegations, they are entitled for reinstatement. The petitioners were suspended pending enquiry into the serious allegations. Though they claim that the Assistant Project Director, Atmakur Constituency submitted that enquiry report, wherein he found that the three Technical Assistants did not indulge in any irregularities, eventually it is the respondents who have to apply their mind to the contents of the report and take appropriate decision as to whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioners shall be continued or not and the suspension orders passed against them shall be revoked. The petitioners ought to have filed a detailed representation to the respondents before approaching this Court. As they have not followed this procedure, it is not possible for this Court to give a positive direction as sought by them in this writ petition for revocation of their suspension. The writ petition is therefore disposed of by permitting the petitioners to make a representation to respondent No.1 and on receipt of such representation, respondent No.1 shall consider the same in the light of the purported enquiry report of the Assistant Project Director, Atmakur Constituency and take an appropriate decision as to whether the suspension of the petitioners shall be revoked or not. He shall pass a detailed order and communicate the same to the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the representation from the petitioners. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.35428 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 12.12.2008 Note:- Issue CC in three days. B/o. ES