IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 10216 of 2011 Between: N.Jyothi …PETITIONER AND The State of A.P. rep.by District Collector and others. ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 10216 of 2011 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in issuing show cause notices, Vide Nos.B/MNREGS/153/2010, dated 30.06.2010 and EGS/219/2010, dated 02.08.2010, and recovery notice No.EGS/288/2010, dated 07.12.2010, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in the post of Field Assistant of Mamillagudem Village, Mothey Mandal, Nalgonga District, by setting aside the suspension orders issued in show cause notice vide No.B/MNREGS/153/2010, dated 30.06.2010. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant at Mamillagudem Village, Monthey Mandal, Nalgonda District, through proceedings No.B/APREGS/27/2007, dated 18.04.2007, issued by respondent No.2. Since then, the petitioner was continuously working as Field Assistant without any remark. While the matter stood thus, on 30.06.2010 respondent No.2 has issued a show cause notice, vide No.B/MNREGS/153/2010, dated 30.06.2010, to the petitioner calling her explanation within three days from 30.06.2010, on certain allegations of misconduct and suspended her from the said post. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted her explanation on 02.07.2010 stating that the allegations levelled against her are false and baseless and further stated that basing on the false news item published in new papers, certain rivals are trying to defame her by politicizing the issue and requested her back into the said post. Without considering the explanation of the petitioner, respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice vide No.EGS/219/2010, dated 02.08.2010, calling her explanation with regard to three allegations levelled against her basing on the social audit report, dated 29.07.2010, and has given five days time for submission of her explanation. On 05.08.2010 the petitioner has submitted her explanation detailing all the facts and explained with regard to the allegations in the show cause notices, dated 02.08.2010 and 30.06.2010, and that there is no notice of any kind before removal of her post as Field Assistant. Without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.2 has issued recovery notice Vide No.EGS/288/2010, dated 07.12.2010 for recovery of an amount of Rs.12,419/- and has granted seven days time for recovery of the same. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 3. There cannot be any dispute that if there is any misconduct on the part of an employee, employer can suspend the employee pending enquiry. Basing on the report came in the newspaper, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was placed under suspension. Ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the suspension order pending enquiry, unless malafides are attributed against the disciplinary authority. No such malafides are attributed against the disciplinary authority. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, recovery proceedings, dated 07.12.2010 has been issued for recovery of an amount of Rs.12,491/-. As seen from the impugned proceedings, seven days time was granted for giving explanation as to why an amount of Rs.12,419/- shall not be recovered. The petitioner has not given any explanation. When the allegations in the proceedings, dated 07.12.2010, remained unchallenged by the petitioner, it can safely be concluded that the contents in the proceedings, dated 07.12.2010 are admitted. 5. Therefore, a due opportunity was given to the petitioner to offer her explanation, but the same has not been availed by her. Hence, there are no grounds to set aside the suspension order, dated 30.06.2010 and also recovery proceedings, dated 07.12.2010. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J APRIL 15, 2010 YVL