IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14164 of 2008 Between: Deekonda Anand Kumar S/o. Kedari O/o. The Mandal Parishad, Kamanpoor Mandal, Karimnagar District, R/o.H.No.5-111, Ambedkar Nagar, Kamanpoor V & M, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector / Chairman, District Water Management Agency, Karimnagar. 2 The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Kamanpoor Mandal of Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned Proceedings No.EGS/08-09, dated 04.04.2008 removing the petitioner from the post of Technical Assistant of Kamanpur, Rompikunta, Nagaram Villages, Kamanpur Mandal in Karimnagar District and declare the same as arbitrary, illegal and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SATYAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme in the Kamanpur Mandal of Karimnagar District. He has been removed by the second respondent form the said post, vide proceedings, dated 04.04.2008, on the ground that in the social audit conducted between 27.03.2008 and 04.04.2008, certain irregularities were noticed against the petitioner. The order, dated 04.04.2008, is challenged in this Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no notice was issued by the second respondent before ordering removal of the petitioner from service. Learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent, on the other hand, submits that serious irregularities were noticed against the petitioner during social audit. It is also stated that the post of Technical Assistant is not a regular civil post, and it is not necessary to issue any notice, or conduct enquiry. A perusal of the impugned order, dated 04.04.2008, discloses that the petitioner was removed on the allegation that he has misappropriated a sum of Rs.2,01,360/-. Such a conclusion could have been arrived at, only after issuing a written notice to the petitioner. This is not a case of termination of the contractual employment simplicitor. When allegations of misappropriation are made, and it is proposed to recover some amount, it is incumbent on the part of the second respondent to issue notice. On this short ground, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the impugned proceedings are set aside. It is, however, made clear that the second respondent shall endeavour to pass fresh order, after following the procedure prescribed by law. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.25.07.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ