IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.32851 of 2011 Between: J.Venkateswara Rao … Petitioner And The Project Director, DWMA, Mahaboob Nagar District and another. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.32851 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not reinstating the petitioner even after four months of completion of the enquiry by the 2nd respondent vide letter No.C/Employment/2011, dated 06.08.2011 pursuant to the suspension order vide Pro.No.D12./514/ST/2010, dated 11.02.2011, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of guidelines and directions of this Court and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into Field Assistant duties at Lokurthi Village, Damargidda Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme on contract basis at Lokurthi Village, Damargidda Mandald, Mahaboobnagar District in the year 2006. While so, the 1st respondent, Project Director, while issuing suspension order dated 11.02.2011, asked the petitioner to submit his explanation, on the allegation of some financial irregularities for which, denying the allegations leveled against him, he submitted explanation on 04.05.2011 to the 1st respondent. After receipt of the said explanation, the 2nd respondent, MPDO, conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted report on 06.08.2011 stating that all the allegations leveled against the petitioner are false. Thereafter, the 1st respondent orally asked the petitioner to submit another detailed point wise explanation to the allegations and for which also, the petitioner submitted another detailed explanation on 08.08.2011 to the 1st respondent but thereafter, the 1st respondent neither considering the report of the 2nd respondent reinstated the petitioner into service nor passed any final orders. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner besides reiterating the said facts submitted that in a case where enquiry is completed and the authorities have not passed any orders, within a period of four months, the petitioner is automatically entitled to reinstatement into service. In the instant case, though the enquiry officer submitted his report and even after a lapse of four months, the authorities concerned did not pass any final orders. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement into service. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that it is a case where the petitioner was placed under suspension on the allegation of misappropriation of funds. While placing the petitioner under suspension the authorities have followed due process of law. But, however, he submitted that as the detailed explanation was submitted by the petitioner on 08.08.2011 and the is pending before the 1st respondent, he may be directed to pass appropriate orders on it. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. Since the aforesaid facts are not in dispute and the learned counsel on either side have categorically submitted that the authorities concerned may be directed to pass appropriate orders, I deem it appropriate that without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition can be disposed with the following order. Since the petitioner stated to have submitted a detailed explanation on 08.08.2011 to the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in respect of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of, at the threshold. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 15.12.2011 LSK