HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23308 of 2009 Date : 23.03.2010 Between : J.Mallesh. …..Petitioner And The Director, Society for Social Audit Accountability and Transparency (SSAAT), Department of Rural Development, Hyderabad & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23308 of 2009 ORDER : Heard learned counsel for petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order of dismissal, dated 6th of August 2009, issued in File No.31/Social Audit/2009 by the 1st respondent-Society. The 1st respondent-Society is constituted by the Department of Rural Development, Government of Andhra Pradesh, with an objective to work towards strengthening and deepening the Social Audit process in Andhra Pradesh, and the same is registered under the Societies Registration Act. The petitioner was appointed in the Strategy Performance and Innovation Unit (SPIU) as a District Resource Person on 01.06.2007, on contract basis, with a monthly remuneration of Rs.5,500/-, and he was again appointed as a State Resource Person (SRP) on 18.02.2009, and the appointment was a contractual one, which was valid only up to 31st of March 2009. During his period of contract, on certain allegations levelled against him, the impugned order of dismissal is passed, dismissing the petitioner from service. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that there are allegations of misbehavior with some lady employees and with the Computer Operators of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and also with Tribal ladies at G.Madugula Mandal of Visakhapatnam District. 3. Mainly, it is the case of the petitioner that though he has denied the allegations levelled against him, without conducting any inquiry and without following the due procedure by giving opportunity to him, the impugned order of dismissal is passed by recording adverse findings against him. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents, while generally denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that respondents have received certain complaints against the petitioner from the District Resource Person by name Sri R.Adinarayana Murthy and others and also from Smt. M.Lakshmi Kumari, and based on the said complaints, an inquiry was conducted and as the allegations are proved, he was not taken back into service. It is stated that in order to maintain the integrity of the Social Audit Teams, and for better implementation of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, which is intended to benefit the poor and the down-trodden, the impugned order is passed, dismissing the petitioner from service. 5. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the petitioner was dismissed from service on certain allegations, which are in the nature of causing stigma on him. In the said order of dismissal, there is no indication of conducting any inquiry by giving opportunity to the petitioner. Having regard to the nature of allegations, unless the petitioner is notified with the charges, the impugned order should not have been passed. Though it is stated in the counter affidavit that an inquiry is conducted, but no particulars of such inquiry are given. In the absence of conducting any inquiry by giving opportunity to the petitioner, and in the absence of supplying such inquiry report to the petitioner, no order can be passed to dispense with his services. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 6. At the same time, it is also to be noted that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis initially as a District Resource Person on 1st of June 2007, and again, he was appointed as a State Resource Person on 18th of February 2009, and the appointment was valid only up to 31st of March 2009. In that view of the matter, he is not entitled to be reinstated into service. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, by setting aside the impugned order of dismissal, but at the same time, declaring that the petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement into service. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 23rd March 2010 ajr