THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23570 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Additional Programme Officer for implementation of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme in Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. Through proceedings, dated 18.07.2008, respondent No.1 placed the petitioner under suspension on the allegation that the social audit caused to the working of the unit revealed that the petitioner had misappropriated the funds. The petitioner denies the allegations. He submits that the Assistant Project Director of the Scheme has enquired into the matter on the instructions issued by the Project Director, respondent No.1 herein, and submitted a report, dated 01.09.2008, holding that the allegations against the petitioner are not proved. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite such a report, he has not been reinstated. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. The experience of this Court, so far, is that the Government does not have a perfect system of appointment of staff for implementation of a Scheme involving hundreds and thousands of crores of rupees. Further, there does not exist any mechanism or system to initiate disciplinary proceedings or to inflict punishments. Everything is done on ad hoc basis and naturally, the cases of misappropriation of funds are on the increase. The absence of perfect system is coming to the rescue of errant officials and corruption in the Scheme has almost become institutionalised. The concept of social audit is so vague and elastic that it hardly has any statutory backing. On the basis of half-baked allegations based on the social audit, the persons employed on ad hoc or temporary basis are either suspended or removed. The proceedings that ensue thereafter are equally uncertain. In the absence of any perfect system for initiation of disciplinary proceedings and description of the procedure for enquiry, steps are taken as one wishes. From a perusal of the report, dated 01.09.2008, submitted by the Assistant Project Director, it is evident that he acted on oral instructions of respondent No.2. There is no reference to any provision or proceedings. All the same, he held that the petitioner is not guilty. When such is the uncertainty as to the allegations against the petitioner, he cannot be continued under suspension. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is, however, left open to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, duly framing charges, if the petitioner is guilty of any acts of misconduct. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:15.07.2010 kdl