The Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu Writ Petition No.8667 of 2011 Between: Sunkari Rajamouli ..... Petitioner AND 1.The District Collector, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District and 4 others. .....Respondents The Court made the following: Order: The present Writ Petition is filed challenging order, dated 31-12-2010, passed by respondent No.5, whereby order, dated 18-09-2010, passed by respondent No.3, removing the petitioner from the post of the Field Assistant of Ramchandrapur Village, Venikepally, Saidapur Mandal, Karimnagar District, was confirmed. The brief facts, that are necessary for the disposal of the Writ Petition, may be stated as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant of the aforesaid village, and that on 28-08-2010, a show cause notice, alleging that he misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,40,000/-, was issued to him by the Superintendent of the office of respondent No.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has submitted a detailed explanation to the said showcause notice, but without considering the same and without giving any opportunity of being heard, respondent No.2 passed the order of removal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal before respondent No.5, who confirmed the same. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he has not misappropriated any amount and that without considering the grounds urged by him in his explanation, the order of removal was passed and as such, the same is liable to be set aside. Respondent No.5 filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner in the Writ Petition and prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that no enquiry was conducted and no reasonable opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner; that the petitioner has not misappropriated any funds of the Government and as such, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development representing respondent Nos.3 and 5 contended that the petitioner was given reasonable opportunity of hearing and that only after conducting a detailed enquiry, he was terminated from service. He further contended that the petitioner himself admitted in his explanation that due to mental tension, he wrote 200 benami names in the muster rolls and therefore, in view of the gravity of the charge, the termination of the petitioner from service is an appropriate punishment and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders. There cannot be any dispute that the disciplinary authority and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact finding authorities, have exclusive power to consider the evidence and are competent to take appropriate decision against the delinquent employee for any misconduct. But, before taking any action, a reasonable opportunity should be given to such employee and an enquiry has to be conducted. No doubt, it is stated in the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, that no enquiry was conducted but the same was specifically denied by respondent No.5 in his counter. Respondent No.5 has categorically stated in the counter that after giving reasonable opportunity and after conducing enquiry, the services of the petitioner were terminated. In support of his contention, respondent No.5 has submitted copies of show cause notice, dated 28-08-2010, petitioner’s explanation, dated 18-09-2010, the order of suspension, dated 18-09-2010, the enquiry report, dated 25-11-2010, and order, dated 31-12-2010, passed by respondent No.5. In view of the documentary material available on record, the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no enquiry is conducted cannot be accepted. Now, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the imposition of punishment of termination of the petitioner from service is proportionate to the proved misconduct or not. There cannot be any doubt that the Court should not interfere with the administrator’s decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. It is also equally settled that the punishment or penalty to be imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. Although the quantum of punishment is within the discretion of the disciplinary authority, yet it must suit the offence and it should not be unduly harsh. The misconduct alleged against the petitioner is that he enrolled names of 200 fictitious persons under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (for short ‘the NREG Scheme’). Had the said fact been unnoticed by the respondents, they would have sustained a loss of about Rs.1,40,000/-. The NREG scheme is meant to provide 100 days guaranteed wage employment to every household, whose adult members volunteer to do the unskilled manual work. The post of Field Assistant held by the petitioner is created for ensuring better implementation of NREG Scheme at the village level. The petitioner himself admitted about his lapses, which are very serious in nature. Fabrication of record for the purpose of pecuniary advantage is a serious misconduct. It is not a case where the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is shocking to the conscience of Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, removal of petitioner is not shown to be illegal. The impugned order needs no interference by this Court. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ (K.C.Bhanu, J) Date: 25th April, 2011 lur