THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1019 of 2011 ORDER: A notification was issued by the District Medical & Health Officer, Khammam inviting applications for the post of ‘2nd A.N.Ms.' in various health centres in Tirumalayapalem Mandal, Khammam District. The centre at Jupeda was also notified. The last date of submission of applications was 25.09.2008. The petitioner, respondent No.6 and about ten others submitted applications. Through proceedings, dated 16.11.2009, the petitioner was appointed as 2nd A.N.M. of Jupeda Centre. Respondent No.6, an unsuccessful candidate, submitted a representation to respondent No.4 stating that the appointment of the petitioner is vitiated in several respects. A detailed enquiry was ordered and the matter was verified from various angles. On finding that the petitioner submitted application two days after the stipulated time, respondent No.4 passed an order, dated 10.01.2011, directing removal of the petitioner from service. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that she was not issued any show cause notice before the order of removal was passed. It is also stated that respondent No.4 was not the appointing authority and he has no jurisdiction to set aside the appointment. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5. It is stated that on receiving a complaint from respondent No.6, a detailed enquiry was conducted and records were verified. It is stated that the petitioner submitted her application on 27.09.2008 two days after the stipulated time. Respondent No.6 filed her counter-affidavit stating that several irregularities have taken place in the appointment of the 2nd A.N.M. of Jupeda Centre. She submits that the application of the petitioner ought not to have been considered at all. Heard Sri V.Brahmaiah Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Medical Health & Family Welfare for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Ms.P.S.Manjula, learned counsel for respondent No.6. On a consideration of quite large number of applications for Jupeda Centre, the petitioner was appointed by the competent authority as 2nd A.N.M. through orders, dated 16.11.2009. On 08.07.2010, respondent No.6 submitted a complaint. The contents of which are a bit disturbing. To be precise, she stated that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid by her as bribe to some individuals in connection with the appointment and though they promised to ensure that she is appointed, the order of appointment was issued to the petitioner by collecting Rs.70,000/-. Respondent No.4 did cause an enquiry into the matter, however, he did not concentrate on the aspect of the illegal gratification. By observing that the application of the petitioner was submitted two days subsequent to the prescribed time, he issued the impugned proceedings. It is rather unfortunate that respondent No.4, who has chosen to consult every possible official in the Department, did not choose to issue a notice to the petitioner, who is the immediately affected person. Before terminating the services of the petitioner, respondent No.4 ought to have issued notice. Further, even if he found anything against the petitioner, he ought to have addressed the appointing authority to take necessary steps, instead he has chosen to issue orders of termination. The whole exercise is untenable in law. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is left open to the competent authority to take action in the matter in accordance with law, duly issuing notice to the affected persons. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:15.09.2011. kdl