THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.15972 of 2011 ORDER: Challenging the proceedings of the second respondent in Rc.No.105/2010 dated 06.07.2010 and consequential notice issued by the first respondent dated 20.01.2011, the present writ petition is filed. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant in the month of December, 2007 by the second respondent and posted at Kuntimaddi Gram Panchayat of Ramagiri Mandal with fixed remuneration of Rs.1200/- per month under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. On a complaint made by one K. Murali Naik on 24.06.2010, an audit enquiry was conducted on 03.07.2010 and basing on the audit report, the Assistant Programme Officer submitted his report on 06.07.2010 to the first respondent. The main allegation in the audit Report is that the workers were paid the labour charges without engaging them in the work. In fact, the salaries are directly credited to the Bank Account of the individuals by the second respondent. The role of the Field Assistant is only to supervise the work as per the schedule allotted to him by the Assistant Programme Officer. As such, the question of misappropriation or misuse of funds by the Field Assistant does not arise. It is the case of the petitioner that the entire basis for passing the impugned order is the allegations levelled by the said K.Murali Naik. The impugned order also refers to the social audit said to have been conducted by the concerned officials. The copy of the allegations levelled by the said individual and the copy of the social audit report were not supplied to the petitioner to give his reply to the said allegations. The petitioner was not given any notice or intimation about conduct of inspection. Therefore, the impugned order is violative of instructions issued by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 09.03.2010 and also the instructions issued in Circular No. 4553/NREGS/AP/2008 dated 02.07.2008. Basing on the said report, he was removed from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without there being any enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service and consequential order was passed and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent contended that against the impugned order an appeal lies to the District Collector and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. No doubt there is alternative remedy available to the petitioner, but that is not a bar for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But at the same time, if the principles of natural justice are violated or there is infringement of fundamental rights or there is arbitrary action on the part of the respondents, certainly the petitioner can seek redressal before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The case of the petitioner does not fall under any one of the three conditions. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority. No costs. K.C.BHANU,J Dt.13.06.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.15972 of 2011 Dt. 13.06.2011