HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.5014 of 2010 Date: April 6, 2010 Between: M. Krishnamurthy, S/o. late M. Gandappa, aged 39 years, Occ: Field Assistant, R/o.Gangavarm Mandal, J.K. Kottapally Village, Chittoor District. … Petitioner And Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Gangavaram Mandal, Chittoor District … Respondent Order: The petitioner, a Field Assistant appointed under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) programme, has questioned proceedings Roc.No.24/2010, dated 25-01-2010. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as Field Assistant under the aforesaid scheme and working as such since the last four years. While so, impugned proceedings are issued terminating his services on the ground that social audit team has noticed some irregularities during field visits made by the petitioner. A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents, denying the allegations made by the petitioner. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. It is stated that social audit conducted on the works in the said scheme revealed that the petitioner committed certain irregularities. It is further stated that in view of the said allegation, impugned proceedings are issued terminating the services of the petitioner. The counter affidavit further states in view of the guidelines issued under the scheme in question, an appeal is provided against the order of removal to the District Collector concerned. The petitioner, who was appointed as Field Assistant under the Scheme in question, has been terminated from services on an allegation that he committed certain irregularities. Though the Scheme itself provides an appeal to the District Collector against the impugned proceedings, the petitioner, without availing the remedy of appeal, approached this court. When an appeal is provided in the Scheme itself, to the District Collector, there is no reason for the petitioner to bypass the remedy of appeal available to him and approach this court. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings. But, however, as the petitioner has not exhausted the remedy of appeal, I dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to file an appeal, against the impugned proceedings, before the competent authority within a period of four weeks from today. In such an event, I am sure that the appellate authority will entertain the same without reference to limitation and pass appropriate orders. No order as to costs. _____________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) April 6, 2010 MRR