HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 23527 of 2009 Date: 08.12.2009 Between: V.Krishnaiah, Kadapa District. … Petitioners And The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Kadapa District and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 23527 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioner herein was appointed as Field Assistant in the year 2006 for the purpose of works under the National Rural Employment Guarantee (NREG) Scheme in Chellagirigela Panchayat, Porumamilla Mandal. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 16.08.2009 passed by the 1st respondent-Mandal Parishad Development Officer- cum-Programme Officer, Porumamilla, whereby the petitioner’s services as Field Assistant were terminated on the ground of alleged irregularities in execution of the works. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice calling upon to explain alleged irregularities in discharging his duties. He was also placed under suspension simultaneously till the enquiry is completed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.16888 of 2009. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court along with similar other writ petitions by order dated 17.08.2009 directing the respondents to complete the enquiry following due process of law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the said order making it clear that in case, the enquiry is not completed, the impugned orders to the extent of suspension pending enquiry shall stand set aside. Thereafter, the impugned order of termination dated 16.08.2009 came to be passed holding that the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 08.08.2009 was not convincing. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition contending inter alia that the impugned order of termination, without assigning any reasons, is arbitrary and illegal. It is also contended that the conclusion arrived at by the 1st respondent that the petitioner failed to discharge his duties properly was not supported by any material and unsustainable. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. His appointment was purely on temporary basis. The post itself is created for ensuring better implementation of NREG Scheme in the village level for providing wage employment to labourers. Admittedly, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner specifying the alleged irregularities on the part of the petitioner in executing the works and after considering his explanation, the impugned order of termination has been passed. The correctness of the conclusions arrived at by the 1st respondent, who is admittedly the competent authority, cannot be gone into and decided by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, as per the Circular No.7548 RD-V(1)/2008 dated 22.11.2008 issued by the Commissioner of Rural Development, A.P., Hyderabad, a remedy of appeal is provided against the order passed by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer to the Project Director, DWMA. The Circular also provides that the appellate authority should dispose of the appeal within the stipulated time. Having regard to the said efficacious alternative remedy of appeal available to the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Project Director DWMA against the impugned order of termination within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of such appeal, the Project Director DWMA shall make the necessary enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI,J Date: 08.12.2009 KLP