IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.32348 of 2011 Between: B.C.Adeppa … Petitioner and The Government of A.P., Rep.by its District Collector and District Programme Coordinator, NREGS, A.P., Kurnool District and others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.32348 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order Roc.200/PE/2011, dated 12.09.2011, passed by the 2nd respondent terminating the services of the petitioner, without any authority of law, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant on 01.09.2007 for Nalakadoddi Grampanchayat of Pattikonda Mandal, Kurnool District by the respondents and since then he is working as such. While so, the 2nd respondent, Project Director/Additional Programme Officer, issued order dated 12.09.2011, terminating the services of the petitioner on the alleged misuse of funds in execution of NREGS works, without conducting any enquiry and without examining any witness. Assailing the said removal order dated 12.09.2011, the petitioner filed an appeal dated 22.09.2011 before the 1st respondent, District Collector, and the same is pending without passing orders thereon. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that aggrieved by the removal order dated 12.09.2011, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 22.09.2011 before the 1st respondent and no orders have been passed thereon. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that aggrieved by the removal order dated 12.09.2011, the petitioner stated to have preferred an appeal on 22.09.2011 and the same is pending. Pending consideration of the appeal, the petitioner cannot invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he submits that the 1st respondent may be directed to dispose of the appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. Admittedly, the petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 12.09.2-11 and assailing which, the petitioner stated to have preferred an appeal on 22.09.2011 before the 1st respondent and the same is pending. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the 1st respondent, District Collector, is directed to consider the appeal dated 22.09.2011, stated to have been filed by the petitioner, 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. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 09.12.2011 LSK