IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.17325 OF 2011 Between: Indana Suresh Babu ..... Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its District Collector & District Programmed Coordinator, NREGS-AP, East Godavari at Kakinada & 2 others ..... Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.17325 OF 2011 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the proceedings bearing No.E/34/EGS/DWMA/11, dated 24.05.2011, of the second respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner herein in his post of Field Assistant. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Writ Petition are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant of Pothuluru Gram Panchayat in Prathipadu Mandal National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (for short, “NREGS”). Respondents 2 and 3 allotted duties to the petitioner for implementation of various works through the wage seekers. The petitioner was working under the third respondent. The second respondent issued proceedings vide No.E/34/EGS/DWMA/11, dated 24.05.2011, suspending the petitioner from the duties of Field Assistant for certain irregularities allegedly committed by him. The third respondent issued a Memo vide RC No.B/63/MGSREGS/Prathipadu on 24.05.2011 calling for explanation within three days for the very same allegations. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 27.05.2011. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was appointed by the third respondent i.e., Mandal Parishad Development Officer & Programme Officer, NREGS, Prathipadu, dated 30.11.2009, as a Field Assistant and, therefore, except the third respondent, the second respondent has no jurisdiction to pass the suspension order and as a matter of fact, the third respondent vide RC No.B/63/MGSREGS/Prathipadu, dated 24.05.2011, issued a memo calling for the explanation of the petitioner for which a reply was submitted to the third respondent and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that earlier, the appointing authority for the Field Assistants is the Mandal Revenue Officer, but in pursuance of the Government Memo No.15963/RD-II/A1/2009, dated 28.08.2010, the second respondent, i.e., the Project Director is the appointing authority for the Field Assistants and that an appeal shall lie to the District Collector against the order of the Project Director under Clause 8 (i) of the Proceedings No.143/SRDS/HR Manual/2009 , dated 06.04.2011. 5. So, as per the instructions issued by the Government, the second respondent is the appointing authority for the post of Field Assistant. The petitioner might have been appointed by the third respondent, in pursuance of the earlier circular No.4553/NREGS-AP/2008, dated 02.07.2008. But, further clarification was issued thereafter by Government Memo No.15963/RD-II/A1/2009, dated 28.08.2010, which prescribes the second respondent as the appointing authority for the post of Field Assistant. Therefore, when the second respondent is the appointing authority, there cannot be any dispute that he can suspend an employee pending disciplinary action. He has got power to suspend the employee pending disciplinary action or in contemplation of disciplinary action. When he has got a power to appoint, it cannot be said that he has no jurisdiction to place an employee under suspension. 6. Further, as per the proceedings No.143/SRDS/HR Manual/2009, dated 06.04.2011, an appeal is provided under Clause Section 8 (i) to the District Collector concerned who is the Appellate Authority against orders issued by the Project Director, District Water Management Guarantee Agency (DWMA). So, in view of the fact that the orders have been passed by the second respondent placing the petitioner under suspension, the appeal lies to the District Collector. No doubt, alternative remedy is no bar for exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but at the same time, at least under three contingencies, this Court can exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, viz., (1) The fundamental right of a person is violated or infringed. (2) The person who passed the order lacks jurisdiction and (3) The principles of natural justice have been violated. The case of the petitioner does not fall under any one of the three categories mentioned above. 7. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the District Collector concerned. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 27th June, 2011. KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.17325 OF 2011 27th June, 2011 KL