IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.21377 OF 2011 Date:29.07. 2011 Between:- M.Keshavalu .. Petitioner And The District Collector, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District and others. .. Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring Proceedings Letter No.D5/393/2010-11, dated 15.07.2011, of respondent No.2 in terminating the petitioner from service as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to set aside the same. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant of Kathapalli Gram Panchayat in the office of respondent No.3 on 01.04.2007 under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and has been working as such. While so, on 05.07.2010, respondent No.3 issued show cause notice calling for explanation and further, suspended him from duties on the ground of misusing the funds. The Gram Sarpanch also gave a letter to respondent No.2 that the irregularity done was only due to mistake and the entire amount was transferred to G.P. Account immediately but the respondent authorities have not withdrawn the suspension order. Respondent No.3 again issued another notice, dated 13.09.2010, and sought for explanation. The petitioner gave explanation and sought for continuation of his job. He made several oral representations to the respondents to revoke the suspension order but in vain. On 07.03.2011, he made another representation to respondent No.2 for restoration of his job but the respondents did not respond to his representation. So, he filed W.P.No.19261 of 2011 and the same is pending. Without considering his explanation and without offering personal hearing, on 15.07.2011, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order terminating him from service. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that without considering the explanation of the petitioner and without making any proper enquiry, the impugned order was passed and hence, he prays to set aside the same. 4. Sri P.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Sri P.Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, contended that after conducting the enquiry, the services of the petitioner were terminated and against the said order, an appeal lies to the District Collector, which is a statutory appeal, and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. No doubt, an alternative remedy is not a bar to entertain a Writ Petition, but at the same time, atleast under three contingencies, viz., 1) clear infringement of the fundamental rights 2) violation of principles of natural justice; and 3) the person, who passed the order has no authority or jurisdiction to pass the order, the petitioner can invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the case of the petitioner does not fall under anyone of the three categories mentioned above. 6. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file an appeal before respondent No.1, who is the statutory appellate authority. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 29th July, 2011. AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.21377 OF 2011 Date:29.07.2011 AMD