IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.12838 OF 2011 Between: P.B. Subramanyam ..... Petitioner AND The District Collector/Chairman, DWMA, Chittor District Chittooor & another ..... Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.12838 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in not passing the order for reinstatement of the petitioner inspite of competition of enquiry as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, highhanded, violation of principles of natural justice and cannot be justified in the eye of law and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate and continue the petitioner as Additional Programme Officer with all consequential benefits including suspension allowances. 2. The petitioner was appointed as an Additional Programme Officer and working under the control of the respondents. By virtue of the Proceedings Rc.No.K6/2241/2009, dated 09.11.2009, passed by the second respondent, he was placed under suspension. Thereafter, the second respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 04.12.2009, calling for the explanation of the petitioner within 15 days with the predetermined action of recovery and termination from service, basing on the social audit report, for which the petitioner has given a suitable reply explaining as to how he was not responsible for the misuse of funds to a tune of Rs.1,17,388/-. As no enquiry was conducted, the petitioner filed W.P.No.15897 of 2010 before this Court. By an order, dated 10.12.2010, this Court directed the second respondent to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Thereafter, the second respondent conducted an enquiry and completed it by 24.01.2011. After examining the farmers and recording their statements, the Assistant Project Director submitted his enquiry report to the second respondent. Thereafter, no action has been taken by the second respondent. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Appropriate decision has to be taken by the second respondent in pursuance of the report submitted by the Assistant Project Director, dated 28.02.2011. 5. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to take appropriate decision in accordance with law on the report submitted by the Assistant Project Director within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate the said order to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 7th June, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.12838 OF 2011 7th June, 2011 KL