THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 5496 OF 2011 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been instituted by a young computer operator engaged under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme at T . Sundupalli Mandal, Kadapa District. By his order, dated 31.01.2011, the Project Director, District Water Management Agency, Kadapa terminated the contract of employment of the writ petitioner apart from ordering for recovery of certain amount. It will be profitable to quote the operative portion of the order passed by the Project Director on 31.01.2011, which is to the following effect: “ The amount involved in the above paras is Rs.171793/-. Of which an amount of Rs.144743/- is recovered leaving a balance of Rs.27050/-. It is noticed that excess amount was paid to the suppliers by making 15% additional payments thought it was not recorded and recommended by the TA/EC. It is done deliberately by making entries of the few pages of M. Book recordings repeatedly and caused loss taking advantage of the position as computer operator with the support of APO/MPDO. The attitude of the CO outsourced is unbecoming and shall be dealt with seriously. In view of the seriousness of the fraud knowingly, willfully and deliberately, the contract with the computer operator is terminated from service. The balance shall be recovered apportionately from MPDO/APO/CO. There orders shall come into force with immediate effect.” The Project Director seems to have afforded a personal hearing to the writ petitioner on 10.12.2010, after she filed her explanation on 13.11.2010 to the show cause notice issued to her on 04.11.2010. From the operative portion of the order passed by the Project Director, what emerges is that, excess amount of 15% has been paid even though it was not recorded and recommended by the Technical Assistant. It is specifically found by the Project Director that the computer operator i.e. the writ petitioner has resorted to this act with the support of the Assistant Project Officer(APO) and the Mandal Parishad Development Officer (MPDO). The learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development has filed a detailed counter-affidavit sworn to by the Project Director. In paragraph 3, after having furnished the various details as to how the Project Director has noticed the excess payment that has been resorted to, however, stated that the petitioner herself has admitted her guilt. The explanation offered by the writ petitioner on 13.11.2010 has been enclosed as supporting material to the counter-affidavit. I have perused the explanation dated 13.11.2010 of the writ petitioner. She has specifically asserted that because of the representation of the tractor owners to the MPDO and the APO, the aforementioned two officers have ordered for payment of 15% in excess and hence, the writ petitioner has fed the same to the computer and accordingly, taken out the print outs. If the Project Director has taken this statement of the writ petitioner into account and consideration, he ought to have conducted a detailed enquiry into the matter. Though the staff engaged under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme per se may not be civil servants of the State and consequently, a detailed procedure, which is required to be followed while dealing with the misconduct committed by a civil servant, may not be needed to be adopted here, but nonetheless, a fair and transparent procedure has necessarily got to be adopted when an order, which is likely to impact another person, particularly touching upon the integrity of the person concerned, is passed. I have already noticed that the Project Director has passed the order dated 31.01.2011 essentially for the reason that the writ petitioner lacked the necessary integrity on her part. However, the explanation offered by the writ petitioner on 13.11.2010 is something different. If the Assistant Project Officer or the Mandal Parishad Development Officer has instructed her to provide for additional payment of 15% to the tractor owners, perhaps, the matter requires to be examined from that perspective. Whether a computer operator on her own and independently could have rejected the suggestion or the oral directive issued by an APO or the MPDO for effecting payment to the extent of 15% over and above the work that is recorded? This aspect appears to have completely escaped the attention of the Project Director. It is therefore, essential that the matter should be remanded back to the Project Director. The Project Director shall conduct an enquiry into the matter, duly examining the Assistant Project Officer, the Mandal Parishad Development Officer and the tractor owners in the presence of the writ petitioner. The petitioner shall be provided an opportunity to cross-examine them. If she is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Project Director that it is the APO or the MPDO or both of them who issued the necessary instructions to her, to ensure 15% additional payment to the tractor owners, or the workers engaged for executing various works under the scheme, the blame cannot lie at the door step of the writ petitioner alone. The Project Director in such cases has to necessarily proceed against the APO as well as the MPDO. He will have to make an assessment as to how far a small- time employee like a computer operator could have picked up necessary courage to disobey the directives issued by such officers and on that basis, take appropriate or suitable decision in the matter. The order dated 31.01.2011 passed by the Project Director should therefore, be considered and treated only as provisional in nature for the present. Depending upon the findings at the enquiry now ordered, the order dated 31.01.2011 will be appropriately modified. Let the enquiry be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, as requested by the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development. With this, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 8th April 2011 ksld