HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16942 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was engaged as N.M.R. in Sri Durga Malleswaraswamyvarla Devasthanam, Vijayawada, the 2nd respondent herein, in the year 2008. He states that he was being paid salary every month. His grievance is that on 8.6.2010, the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam, called him and directed that he shall not attend to the duties. Petitioner submits that the action of the 2nd respondent amounts to termination of services, without following the procedure prescribed under law. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit. The fact that the petitioner was engaged as N.M.R. is admitted. It is stated that the remuneration of the petitioner was initially Rs.50/- per day and it was enhanced to Rs.100/- per day. It is alleged that the petitioner committed irregularities on several occasions and in spite of warnings, he did not correct himself. The petitioner is said to have failed to supply Laddus to the persons, who purchased Rs.50/- tickets of Darshan. Another allegation is that the Assistant Executive Officer of the Temple inspected the counter in which the petitioner was selling the tickets when he received complaints and it was found that the petitioner possessed excess cash. The 2nd respondent takes the plea that the C.C.C.A. Rules or other Service Rules do not apply to the petitioner. Heard Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. The petitioner, no doubt, was engaged as N.M.R. and is working for the past two years. However, his performance and conduct are said to be not satisfactory. Specific instances of the irregularities committed by the petitioner are mentioned. It is true that whenever services of an employee are terminated on the allegations of mis-conduct or mis-behaviour, departmental enquiry must be conducted. That, however, would apply only to cases where an employee is appointed through a written order by a competent authority. For all practical purposes, the petitioner is being engaged on daily wage basis, depending on the availability of work. Therefore, the question of applying the regular procedure of conducting departmental enquiry etc., does not apply to the case of the petitioner. In case, the petitioner is of the view that he has been wrongfully retrenched, he has to avail the remedy under the relevant provisions of law. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY,J DATE: 29th October, 2010 pnb