IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.18447 OF 2011 Between: A. Thirupathi Rao ..... Petitioner AND The Project Director, District Water Management Authority (DWMA) & APDC, Mahamatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Srikakulam & 2 others ..... Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.18447 OF 2011 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.573/2010/E2/SA, dated 21.05.2011, issued by the first respondent terminating the services of the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Technical Assistant in NREGS Works, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam District with all consequential benefits. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Writ Petition are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant in the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) works in Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam District. While so, the first respondent issued show cause notice No.573/2010/E2/SA, dated 29.12.2010, stating that the social audit report, dated 14.12.2010, reveals certain variations in the works executed in the given area of works i.e., Ponnada, Bhagiradhapuram, Banthalakoduru and Kothapeta, Srikakulam District and thereby asked the petitioner to submit explanation. The petitioner submitted the explanation denying the charges and submitted that the said allegations were vague and baseless. The petitioner submitted that the first respondent, without application of mind and contrary to facts and records, issued impugned proceedings Rc.No.573/2010/E2/SA, dated 21.05.2011, terminating his services and also directed him to remit the amount assessed towards variations in the said works. The petitioner further submitted that the first respondent instead of verifying the factual position of the matter, routinely issued the said impugned proceedings. In fact, the variations relate to the works executed in the given area by using men and material. The first respondent held Praja Vedika and took unilateral decision basing upon the vague allegations. Such allegations were neither raised nor discussed in the said meeting. In fact, a social audit ought to have been conducted through grama sabha as per Section 127 of NREGS Act, 2005. The grama sabha was not conducted in respect of the allegations mentioned in the charge memo. No technical personnel were deployed to examine the technical variations pointed out in the charge memo. The fist respondent did not look into the explanation submitted by the petitioner with reference to the variations and related issues raised therein. The termination order was issued without proper enquiry and no concerned individuals were examined. The petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity to examine concerned individuals with reference to the allegations. The findings were given by the first respondent himself, on assessing the allegations behind his back without proper enquiry. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the decisions taken at Praja Vedika have no legal sanctity since the decisions ought to be taken by conducting grama sabha. The praja vedika decision was taken to initiate disciplinary action against MPDO. APO as per report given by the Field Assistant and another in respect of the Charge No.4, but the first respondent arbitrarily initiated action against the petitioner which is not sustainable. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that without conducting any enquiry, the impugned order is passed and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Sri M. Subrahmanyam, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that as per the rules, the appeal shall lie to the District Collector who is the Appellate Authority on the orders passed by the Project Director. 5. No doubt, alternative remedy is not a bar for entertaining the Writ Petition, but at the same time, at least under three contingencies, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised, viz., 1. When there is infringement or violation of fundamental rights, 2. When the principles of natural justice are violated, and 3. The Authority who passed the order has no jurisdiction. 6. The case of the petitioner does not fall under any one of the above categories so as to admit the Writ Petition. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the principles of natural justice have been violated, but there is no averment in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that in what manner the principles of natural justice have been violated. 7. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed 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: 4th July, 2011. Note: Issue C.C. by tomorrow (B/o.) KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.18447 OF 2011 4th July, 2011 KL