IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.7317 OF 2011 BETWEEN: J. Sampath S/o.C. Jaypal …. Petitioner AND The District Collector, Chittoor District and others. …. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.7317 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to attend the duties as Field Assistant, without there being any order of termination/suspension and without any notice or opportunity and no irregularities committed by the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to retain and continue the petitioner as Field Assistant with all consequential benefits. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant in P.V. Puram Gram Panchayat, GD Nelllore Mandal, Chittoor District under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS). The 3rd respondent –Mandal Parishad Development Officer, GD Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner withdrew an amount of Rs.3,780/- by creating musters for some of the works in the fields of some farmers, which actually was not done. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notice denying the allegations and explained that he has not misappropriated the amount. The farmers and labourers also gave statements in writing to the 3rd respondent in favour of the petitioner. The 3rd respondent did not allow the petitioner to attend the duties as Field Assistant without taking into consideration his explanation. As the 3rd respondent did not consider his case, the petitioner made a representation before the 2nd respondent – Project Director, DWMA, Chittoor, on 07-02-2011. Inspite of repeated requests made by the petitioner, the respondents did not allow him to discharge the duties as Field Assistant, without passing any suspension / termination order. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that without conducting any enquiry and without there being any order of termination, the petitioner was not allowed to discharge his duties and hence, he prays to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Field Assistant. 4. On the other hand, leaned counsel for the respondents contended that appropriate decision has to be taken by the 2nd respondent in accordance with law. 5. The case of the petitioner is that without there being any enquiry and without passing any suspension order, the 3rd respondent is not allowing him to discharge his duties as Field Assistant. Whether any enquiry is conducted or not or any suspension order is passed or not has to be enquired into by the 2nd respondent and he has to take appropriate decision on the representation, dated 07-02-2011, submitted by the petitioner to him in accordance with the service conditions of the Field Assistant. 6. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to take appropriate decision and pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner, dated 07-02-2011, and communicate the same to him. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J July 07, 2011. KTL