THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.2779 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not permitting the petitioners to continue as Field Assistants in the office of the 3rd respondent without there being any show cause notice, or termination orders as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioners as Field Assistants in the 3rd respondent office. 2. The petitioners were appointed as Field Assistants for implementation of various Rural Development Programmes, which aim to provide livelihood opportunities to the poorest of poor people. During 1st week of May, 2008 there was a social audit conducted by the officials, wherein they found certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioners and basing on the report of Deputy Executive Engineer, Q.C. Cell, DWMA, Anantapur, the 2nd respondent without giving any show cause notice issued a letter to 3rd respondent directing him to terminate the services of the petitioners and to take necessary action for recovery of the misappropriated amount. The 3rd respondent without giving any notice, terminated the services of the petitioners and the petitioners were not given termination orders till today. The petitioners gave representations to the respondents, but they have not acted upon. The 3rd respondent ought to have conducted an enquiry before terminating their services. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The 3rd respondent filed counter denying the averments of the petition. It is stated that the post of Field Assistant is purely temporary and was created for ensuring better implementation of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) schedule at the village level for providing wage employment to labourers. The petitioners were appointed as Field Assistants in the year 2006 and 2007 and their appointment is only temporary. The Quality Control cell inspected the NREGS works where the petitioners were working and found that they recorded excess work than the actual measured quantity in the field, for which the amounts were paid. Basing on the Quality Control inspection, 2nd respondent issued proceedings to the 3rd respondent directing him to terminate the persons who involved in irregularities and to take necessary action for recovery of misappropriated amount. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent issued notice, for which the petitioners have not submitted any explanation and hence, the petitioners were terminated from service. The petitioners prepared bogus musters and measurement sheets without actual work and misappropriated the funds and after giving reasonable opportunities to the petitioners, their services were terminated. The petitioners after receipt of termination orders, without filing an appeal, directly approached this Court after lapse of three years with a mala fide intention. Hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that without issuing any notice and conducting enquiry, services of the petitioners were terminated thereby violating the principles of natural justice and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that a notice was issued calling for the explanations, for which the petitioners did not give any reply and therefore, the services of the petitioners were terminated, that to circumvent filing of appeal, the present writ petition is filed after lapse of three years, that the writ petition lacks bona fides and hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Though it is stated by the petitioners that without giving any show cause notice and conducting enquiry, their services were terminated, the said allegation is specifically denied. Basing on the 2nd respondent’s notice, the 3rd respondent issued notice on 30-05-2008, for which the petitioners have not submitted their explanations. Therefore, services of the petitioners were terminated vide proceedings, dated 10-06-2008. 7. As seen from the pleadings, no explanations were given by the petitioners to the notice, dated 30-05-2008. If the explanations are given and they are not satisfactory, then it is imperative for the disciplinary authority to conduct enquiry. In view of the fact that the petitioners have not denied or disputed about the contents of notice, question of conducting enquiry does not arise. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no enquiry was conducted before passing termination orders is devoid of merit in view of the fact that no explanations were offered by the petitioners. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ---------------------- K.C.BHANU, J. DATED: 09-06-2011 Hsd