THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26413 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as an Additional Programme Officer for Gangavaram Mandal, Chittoor District, through proceedings, dated 07.03.2008 under the N.R.E.G.S. scheme. He was placed under suspension, through proceedings, dated 09.11.2009, on the basis of certain allegations. When the proceedings were continued without any progress, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.15897 of 2010. That was disposed of on 10.12.2010 directing the respondents to conclude the enquiry within six weeks. Though the enquiry was concluded as directed, the appointing authority i.e., the 3rd respondent herein did not take any steps. That led to the filing of W.P.No.12838 of 2011. An order was passed on 07.06.2011 directing the 3rd respondent to pass appropriate orders. Stating to be in compliance with the said order, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings, dated 16.06.2011, dismissing the petitioner from service. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as many as 11 charges were framed against the petitioner and all of them were held not proved by the enquiry officer. He also submits that the 3rd respondent has mentioned another charge, which was not the subject matter of the charge sheet and dismissed him from service. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the 3rd respondent has taken into account, the various acts and omissions on the part of the petitioner and passed the impugned order. The charge sheet issued to the petitioner on 04.12.2009 contains as many as 11 charges and the basis thereof was also indicated. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 28.12.2009 denying the charges as required under law. The 3rd respondent appointed as enquiry officer. The enquiry officer submitted his report holding that none of the charges were proved against the petitioner. In case, the 3rd respondent wanted to take a different view or disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer, he ought to have issued a notice to the petitioner indicating the basis for his disagreement. He did not do so. However, he has included an altogether different item, which was not at all the subject matter of enquiry. The 3rd respondent cannot invent new grounds to proceed against the petitioner. The impugned order suffers from illegality. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. As a result, the 3rd respondent shall reinstate the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner however shall not be entitled to any back wages. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 22.09.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26413 of 2011 Date: 22.09.2011 JSU