IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 5289 of 2008 Between: Smt. T.Hymavathi, W/o.Ravinder Goud, Narva Mandal, Mahaboobnagar Dist., ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector/DPC(EGS), DWMA,Mahaboobnagar Dist., 2 The Vice-Chairman, Centre for Development Studies, APARD,Rajendranagar,Hyderabad-30. 3 The Project Director, District Water Management Agency, Mahaboobnagar District. 4 The Mandal Parishat Development Officer,Narva Mandal, Mahaboobnagar 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 Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the impugned proceedings No.D5/SA/Narva/2008 dt.26-2- 2008 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and against to the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same by permitting the petitioner to continue in the post of A.P.O., Narva Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.PRABHAKAR BOMMAGANI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Programme Officer for Narva Mandal under the Andhra Pradesh Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme vide proceedings, dated 05.06.2006, by the competent authority. Several works were undertaken in the Mandal under the said programme. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice, dated 23.02.2008, pointing out certain irregularities and misuse of the funds. On receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted her explanation on 25.02.2008. The first respondent passed an order, dated 26.02.2008, directing removal of the petitioner from the post. The same is challenged in this writ petition. It is urged that the reasons mentioned in the show cause notice are different from those mentioned in the order of removal and that the petitioner has been singled out to cover up the lapses on the part of the superior officials. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it is stated that the irregularities of very large magnitude were noticed, resulting in misappropriation of a sum of Rs.23,68,728/- and after conducting enquiry as well as Grama Sabha, the District Collector had suspended the Mandal Parishad Development Officer and Assistant Engineer and terminated the contract of the petitioner, Additional Programme Officer, 14 Field Assistants and one Technical Assistant after giving reasonable opportunity. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The record discloses that huge amounts released under the scheme were not properly accounted for and in some cases, misappropriation was also noticed. This gave rise to suspension of Mandal Parishad Development Officer and Assistant Engineer, pending enquiry. Inasmuch as the employment of other employees, such as Additional Programme Officer, Field Assistants and Technical Assistant is on contract basis, the District Collector has terminated the contracts. Before terminating the contract, an enquiry into various lapses was conducted and the employees concerned were issued show cause notices. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any legal infirmity in the impugned order. It is true that the respondents did not hold any departmental enquiry against the petitioner, obviously because it was not warranted. Therefore, there was no occasion for them to decide the truth or otherwise of the allegations against the petitioner. The departmental enquiry against the Mandal Parishad Development Officer and Assistant Engineer is due to be held. If during the course of that enquiry, it emerges that there were no lapses on the part of the petitioner, the first respondent shall consider the feasibility of reappointing her. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of upholding the impugned order, but with the above observation. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:15.04.2008 KDL ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}