THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 31239 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, declaring the proceedings Rc.No.759/2010-A dated 07.12.2010 issued by the 1st respondent whereby the petitioner was terminated from service, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate him into service. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondent. The case in brief is: The petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant during February 2007, and was posted to Gadampalem Village, Golugonda Mandal. On the allegations of misappropriation of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) funds, he was removed from service vide proceedings dated 07.12.2010. The petitioner challenges the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings, without following the due procedure by issuing a show cause notice, and conducting enquiry. Alleging that he was not given an opportunity of representing his case, and seeking direction to the respondents to reinstate him into service, he filed this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not served with a show cause notice and the so- called enquiry stated to have been conducted by the 2nd respondent is done behind the back of the petitioner and the 1st respondent, basing on the enquiry report, issued the impugned proceedings and hence, the same are liable to be set aside. He further contended that, in similar circumstances, this Court, in W.P.No.10608 of 2011 set aside the termination proceedings therein and reinstated the petitioner into service, and accordingly, the petitioner herein also has to be reinstated duly setting aside the impugned proceedings. Learned Government Pleader for the respondents, based on the counter affidavit, contended that the period of contract appointment of the petitioner was already over and, on the allegations on the petitioner with regard to misappropriation of NREGS funds, the District Collector directed the matter to be enquired by the concerned authorities and, accordingly, the 2nd respondent enquired into the matter on 07.11.2010, by recording statements of wage seekers in Gadampalem Village, and submitted report to the 1st respondent. It is further stated that the petitioner was present at the time of conducting enquiry and, based on the enquiry report, the 1st respondent issued the impugned proceedings, and hence the same does not warrant interference of this Court. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is working as Field Assistant from 2007 onwards, and though the petitioner contract period was for one year, he was in service till termination. Basing on a complaint stated to have been filed by the President of Mandal Parishad, Golugonda alleging misappropriation of funds, the 1st respondent appointed the 2nd respondent as enquiry officer who conducted enquiry and submitted report and, basing on the said report, the petitioner was terminated from service by the impugned proceedings. However, it was nowhere mentioned in the impugned proceedings that the petitioner was served with a notice and that his explanation was called for. Merely stating that the petitioner was present at the time of enquiring into the allegations on the petitioner does not amount to compliance with the due procedure of enquiry and principles of natural justice. This Court, in WP No.10608 of 2011, dealt with a similar circumstance where the petitioner therein, who was also a Field Assistant, was terminated from service on some allegations, without conducting any enquiry. The said writ petition was allowed, setting aside the termination proceedings and reinstating the petitioner therein into service forthwith. In the circumstances of the present case, no notice was issued and no explanation was called for on the allegations against the petitioner, and though enquiry said to have been conducted, is behind the back of the petitioner. The impugned proceedings did not comply with due procedure of enquiry and principles of natural justice, and hence, they are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings are set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith. However, this order does not preclude the respondents to take appropriate action by following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH 22nd December, 2011 KSM