IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.17684 OF 2011 Date:18.07. 2011 Between:- B.Lavanya .. Petitioner And The District Collector and D.P.C. NREG Scheme, East Godavari District, Kakinada and others. .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.17684 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3, without conducting detailed enquiry and ignoring the directions of this Court in W.P.No.25989 of 2010 on 22.10.2010, terminating the petitioner from the services of Technical Assistant, Rampachodavaram, Rampachodavaram Mandal, East Godavari District vide Proceedings No.456/NREGS/2008, dated 24.12.2010, as well as suspension orders vide R.C.No.456/NREGS/2008, dated 01.07.2010, without jurisdiction and without any authority, as illegal and arbitrary and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service in the said post. 2. The petitioner has been appointed as Technical Assistant on 22.03.2010 under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (for short, ‘the Scheme’) by respondent No.1 and posted to work at Rampachodavaram, Rampachodavaram Mandal, East Godavari District and working as such. One Lova Raju, Ex-Technical Assistant, created documents and misappropriated the Government Funds with the help of one K.Krishna Reddy, Field Assistant. Both of them have confirmed and given statements stating that they have done the act of misappropriation of funds to a tune of Rs.2,32,687/-, which was returned by them through the Assistant Project Officer, who deposited the same in the bank account of N.R.E.G.S. The petitioner has no role in the said misappropriation, which was clarified and confirmed by the Assistant Project Officer as well as M.P.D.O., Rampachodavaram. The petitioner has informed the same to the Additional Programme Officer and stated that on the basis of measurement given by the Field Assistant, the same was recorded in the M. Book. In spite of that, she was suspended by respondent No.2 by order, dated 01.07.2010, on the ground of misappropriation of funds to a tune of Rs.2,32,687/-. So, the petitioner filed W.P.No.25989 of 2010, which was disposed of with a direction to conduct an enquiry within a period of three months. But, without conducting a detailed enquiry, respondent No.3 passed the termination order, dated 24.12.2010. Respondent No.3 has no authority to suspend or terminate the employees under N.R.E.G. scheme and the termination order is liable to be set aside. Hence, she filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has not committed any misconduct i.e., misappropriation of the funds of the Government; that no enquiry was conducted and the Project Director, respondent No.3, is not competent to pass any orders and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned orders. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that by virtue of proceedings No.143/SRDS/HR Manual/2009, dated 27.01.2010, Project Director is the disciplinary authority. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the authority, who passed the impugned orders, lacks jurisdiction cannot be accepted. With regard to the misconduct alleged, which is a question of fact, it cannot be determined and decided by this Court. Admittedly, an appeal is provided against the termination order, dated 24.12.2010, passed by respondent No.3 to respondent No.1-the District Collector, East Godavari District. No doubt, availability of an alternative remedy is not a bar to entertain a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but at the same time, atleast under three contingencies, viz., 1) infringement of the fundamental rights 2) violation of principles of natural justice; and 3) the person, who passed the order has no authority or jurisdiction to pass the order, the petitioner can invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The case of the petitioner does not fall under anyone of the three categories mentioned above. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file an appeal before respondent No.1, who is the statutory appellate authority. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 18th July, 2011. AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.17684 OF 2011 Date:18.07.2011 AMD