THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.17182 of 2010 ORDER The petitioner was appointed as Electronic Datta Processing in the Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty (SERP) in december, 2007 on 12.07.2010. The Project Director, DRDA-4th respondent issued proceedings to the effect that the services of the petitioner ought not required any further. The petitioner challenged the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitiner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The appointment of the petitioner is to the process of outsourcing. Such appointment is not governed by any rules nor it is preceded by any notification made. It is only on an application submitted by the petitioner that he came to be appointed. Further, it is not for any specific term. The petitioner contends that the order of removal attaches stigma to him. Reference is made to certain internal correspondence made among the respondents. The petitioner can be said to have suffered any detriment if only any acts of misconduct or illegality are mentioned in the impugned order, except stating that the services of the petitioner are not required any longer. Nothing objection is attributed to him. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ions of misconduct engaged as Field Assistant for K.R.Kothapalli Village, for implementation of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. His services were terminated vide proceedings dated 25.01.2010. Thereafter, the Thasildar, Gangavaram Mandal, chittoor District issued proceedings dated 22.05.2010 requiring the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.36,000/- stating that the petitioner misappropriated the same. Reference was made to the social audit report of Gangavaram Mandal, the same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. It may be true that the petitioner has been terminated from the office of Field assistant. Hoever, before any finalfial law fastened on the petitioner, he ought to have issued a notice and the material on the basis of which the allegation is made ought to have been ade available. Such a process was not followed. Though the impugned proceedings are claimed as notice, the petitioner was straightaway required to deposit the amount with the threat of proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act. It is violative of principles of natural justice. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. It is left open to the respondents to issue show cause notice before they proposed to recover any amount from the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date: 07.09.2010 sj