THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No. 23554 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Programme Officer under the NREG Scheme for Kulkacherla Mandal of Rangareddy District on 05.06.2006. However, through proceedings dated 21.12.2006, the services of the petitioner were terminated on oral instructions issued by the District Collector, the first respondent herein. The petitioner challenges the same. Heard Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned standing counsel for the third respondent. The principal contention urged by the petitioner is that no notice was issued to him before the order of termination was passed and that the impugned order was not clear as to who passed it. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner had executed several works without there being any proper sanction and had exceeded the limits of sanction. The information is said to have been gathered in the social audit and on the oral instructions of the first respondent, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the Project Director, the second respondent herein. The appointing authority of the petitioner is the second respondent. The appointment was for a term of two years. At the relevant point of time, there did not exist any norms or rules to be followed for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the persons engaged under the scheme. However, it is obligatory on the part of the second respondent to issue notice to the petitioner in case any irregularities were noticed. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the first respondent issued oral instructions to remove the petitioner from service. Curiously, the order was issued by the first respondent himself. Hardly, there was any involvement of the second respondent in the matter. The whole exercise is illegal, contrary to the principles of natural justice and lacks propriety. The occasion for the petitioner to be required to avail remedy of appeal does not exist since the impugned order is issued by the first respondent i.e., the appellate authority. Hence the impugned order is set aside and the second respondent is directed to take the petitioner into service against any vacancy, within his jurisdiction. It shall be open to him to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner after reinstating him within a period of four weeks from the date of reinstatement of the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt.29.08.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No. 23554 of 2008 Dt.29.08.2011