HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.1813 of 2010 Date: April 13, 2010 Between: Mr. K. Pedababulu, S/o. Jagandarao, Age: 37 years, Occ: Field Assistant, O/o.MPDO, Uppalguptam Mandal, R/o.Gopavaram village, East Godavari District … Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its District Collector/Programme Officer, NREGS, East Godavari District, Kakinada, and two others … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed questioning proceedings Rc.Superintendent/14/2008, dated 01-12-2009 and also proceedings Rc.Superintendent/14/2008, dated 10-12-2009, issued by the third respondent-Mandal Parishad Development Officer/Progamme Oficer, Mandal Praja Parishad, Uppalaguptam Mandal, East Godavari District. The petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant in the year 2007 for Gopavaram village under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and has been discharging duties as such. While so, the third respondent issued show-cause notice to the petitioner vide proceedings dated 01-12- 2009 alleging that he is responsible for misappropriation of funds allotted under the Scheme and called for his explanation. It is stated that the petitioner received the said proceedings on 05-12-2009 and filed his explanation on 07-12-2009. It is the case of the petitioner that though he filed explanation, proceedings dated 10-12-2009 are issued recording a finding that that he has not filed explanation to the notice and he was removed from service. It is the case of the petitioner that the proceedings dated 10-12-2009, removing him from service, are issued on new allegations which are not subject matter of show-cause notice dated 01-12-2009. The proceedings dated 10-12-2009 is mainly questioned on the ground that in spite of filing explanation by the petitioner, the same is not considered. This court, while issuing notice before admission, by order dated 25- 02-2010, passed interim orders. It is stated that pursuant to the said orders, the petitioner is being continued in service. A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. Along with the counter affidavit, a copy of the explanation dated 07-12-2009 submitted by the petitioner, to the show-cause notice, is filed. It is stated that as the explanation of the petitioner has not been received within seven days from the date of issuance of issuing show-cause notice, proceedings dated 10-12-2009 are issued based on the allegations which are referred in the show-cause notice. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the proceedings dated 01-12-2009 and 10-12-2009. A perusal of the proceedings dated 10-12-2009 would show that on certain charges, explanation of the petitioner was called for and he was removed from service by recording a finding that explanation was not filed. It can be seen from the said proceedings that certain new allegations are made against the petitioner, which are not subject matter of proceedings dated 01- 12-2009. It is the case of the petitioner that proceedings dated 01-12-2009 were received by him on 05-12-2009 and he has filed explanation on 07-12- 2009. Though it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner did not file explanation within the time stipulated, it is to be seen that the petitioner received the show-cause notice dated 01-12-2009 only on 05-12-2009 and filed his explanation on 07-12-2009. The explanation of the petitioner dated 07-12-2009 is on record. In fact, there is delay in receiving explanation by the respondents, but as the petitioner has received the show-cause notice belatedly, he could not file his explanation within the time stipulated. In those circumstances, respondents ought to have given reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. As much as the explanation of the petitioner is not considered before issuance of proceedings dated 10-12-2009 and, further, new grounds are stated for the first time in the proceedings dated 10-12-2009, which are not subject matter of show-cause notice dated 01-12- 2009, I deem, it is a fit case where the matter should be considered afresh. In the circumstances, proceedings dated 10-12-2009 issued by the third respondent are set aside. The matter is remanded to the third respondent, with a direction to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders, by taking into consideration the explanation filed by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. _______________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) April 13, 2010 MRR