HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.32027 OF 2011 Dated: 05th December, 2011 Between: M.Mahesh Swamy. … Petitioner And The District Collector, and others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.32027 OF 2011 Order: This Writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in passing order in Rc.No.528/HRM/2010, dated 10.05.2011, terminating the services of the petitioner as Field Assistant as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the articles of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Field Assistant by setting aside the termination order, dated 10.05.2011. 2. The brief facts of the case, that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition, are as follows:- The petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant on 10.05.2007 under the scheme known as Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. While so, on a complaint made against him before the A.P.Lokayukta, the 2nd respondent issued show cause notice, dated 06.04.2011, enclosing the statement of charges in Annexure-I and II and sought explanation within 10 days. Later he was also servied with a 2nd show cause notice, dated 25.04.2011. The petitioner has submitted an explanation on 07.05.2011 explaining the delay for submitting the explanation. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has issued the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.528/HRM/2010, dated 10.05.2011, terminating the services of the petitioner without taking into consideration of the representation submitted by him. Aggrieved by the said termination order, he preferred an appeal on 19.05.2011 before the 1st respondent and the said appeal is pending. The said termination order is based on the enquiry report, dated 14.10.2010, submitted by the Assistant Project Director, DWMA, Adoni. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner submitted his explanation on 07.05.2011 to the show cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent has not considered the same and passed the impugned order and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Admittedly, as could be seen from the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent, dated 10.05.2011, it is clear that there is no reference to the explanation submitted by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he submitted his explanation on 07.05.2011. The impugned proceedings also does not speak of any notice given to the petitioner pursuant to the alleged enquiry report conducted against the petitioner and submission of the report thereof to the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the impugned proceedings itself are arbitrary, illegal and in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. In that view of the matter, though the petitioner has submitted an appeal before the appellate authority 1st respondent on 19.05.2011, it is just and proper to set aside the impugned order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the 2nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner afresh by following the principles of natural justice and pass appropriate orders within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J 5th December 2011 LMV HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.32027 OF 2011 Dated: 05th December, 2011 lmv