IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16276 of 2008 Between: Ravula Ramanjaneyulu, S/o. Peda Saidulu, Peddavoora Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector-cum-Programme Co-ordinator, DWMA, Nalgonda District. 2 The Mandal Parishat Development Officer, M.P. Peddavoora Mandal, Nalgonda District. 3 The Mandal Parishat Development Officer, M.P. Peddavoora Mandal, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the impugned proceedings NO. E1/340/2008 dt. 2-6-2008 issued by the 1st respondent removing the petitioner herein from the post of Technical Assistant, of Peddavoora Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, without following the due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary, against to the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 21 of the constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedings dt. 2-6-2008 of the 1st respondent by continuing the petitioner in the post of Technical Assistant of Peddavoora Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, and to grant Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.PALLENAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16276 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Technical Assistant under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Peddavoora Mandal, Nalgonda District. During the course of enquiry by the Assistant Project Director, Nidamanuru, certain irregularities on the part of the petitioner were noticed. Therefore, the 1st respondent issued a notice, dated 23.04.2008, to the petitioner, requiring him to submit explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation. On a consideration of the same, the 1st respondent passed an order, dated 02.06.2008, removing the petitioner from the post of Technical Assistant. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent did not conduct any enquiry before removing the petitioner from service on disciplinary grounds. He contends that the allegations against the petitioner are not true, particularly when he is not vested with the power to distribute the amount. Learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare, on the other hand, submits that though the appointment of the petitioner is contractual in nature and could have been terminated without any notice, the 1st respondent issued a notice dated 23.04.2008 and that no interference is warranted. The appointment of the petitioner is purely contractual in nature and is associated with the scheme. It is neither a regular post nor a continuous one. Even where the termination of the incumbents of such posts is resorted to, this Court insists that a notice of termination must be given. In the instant case, such a notice was issued and the petitioner submitted explanation. Once the basic requirement of compliance with the principles of natural justice is ensured, this Court cannot delve into the merits of the matter. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the dismissal of the writ petition does not preclude the petitioner from pursuing the remedies, if any, available to him in law. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 28.07.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16276 of 2008 Date: 28.07.2008 JSU