IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6899 of 2009 Between: Sri Syamson … Petitioner And The District Collector and District Program Coordinator (E.G.S), Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District and six others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Venugopal Reddy Goddindla Counsel for the respondents: G.P for Panchayat Raj. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not conducting enquiry and dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, vide: order dated 27-3-2009 of respondent No.1, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner was working as a Technical Assistant in Lingala village & Mandal. He was removed from service by the Project Director, Mahaboobnagar, respondent No.4 herein, by order dated 27-12-2008 on the ground that the petitioner indulged in certain irregularities in the work undertaken under A.P. Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. The said order was questioned in appeal filed by the petitioner before respondent No.1. Respondent No.4 communicated the purported decision of respondent No.1 by order dated 27-3-2009, wherein it is mentioned that respondent No.1 heard the petitioner in person on 2-2- 2009 and she came to the conclusion that the appeal did not deserve to be admitted. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. Duty to give reasons is a facet of principles of natural justice. It is, therefore, incumbent upon every quasi-judicial authority to assign reasons for the decision taken by it. Absence of reasons will put the aggrieved party to a distinct disadvantage because he will not be in a position to question such an order on any ground. (See: S.N.Mukherjee Vs. Union of India1) and State of Punjab Vs. Bagh Singh2). The impugned order passed by respondent No.4 clearly suggests that respondent No.1 has not assigned any reasons for her refusal even to admit the appeal. It is noticed from the order passed by respondent No.4 that on the basis of the note order dated 10-2-2009 said to have been passed by respondent No.1, respondent No.4 communicated the result of the decision of the former. The method followed by respondent No.1 does not conform to the ordinary procedure to be followed by an appellate authority. When the appeal power is entrusted to respondent No.1, it is incumbent upon her not only to take a decision, but also to communicate the same to the parties concerned. Hence, the said order passed by respondent No.1 cannot be sustained in law. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed. Order dated 27-3-2009 passed by respondent No.4, communicating the result of the appeal is set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to rehear the petitioner afresh and pass a fresh speaking order, ignoring the purported note order dated 10-2-2009, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. -------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dt.02-4-2009 MNR 1) AIR 1990 SC 1984 2) (2004) 1 SCC 547.