THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.15172 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Field Assistant under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme for Khambamvaripalli Gram Panchayat, Baireddipalli Mandal, Chittoor District. The 2nd respondent terminated the services of the petitioner through order, dated 25.09.2010. The petitioner filed W.P.No.27180 of 2010 challenging the same. The writ petition was disposed of on 02.11.2010 directing that the 2nd respondent shall follow the procedure, that was indicated by this Court in the order passed in W.P.No.14121 of 2009 and batch. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 16.12.2010. Explanation was submitted by the petitioner. The 2nd respondent arranged for personal appearance of the petitioner on 10.01.2011. Taking the version that emerged in that enquiry into account, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 23.01.2011 removing the petitioner from the office of the Field Assistant. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Though the scheme was launched with huge financial allocation, there did not exist any framework of Rules to deal with the service conditions of the employees at various levels. The ad hoc rules were issued from time to time. Taking stock of the relevant provisions, this Court summarised the procedure to be followed in such matters in its order in W.P.No.14121 of 2009. Clause (3) thereof indicates that if any action is based upon social audit, the majority members of the Gram Panchayat and the delinquent Filed Assistant/Technical Assistant must be invited to the Gram Sabha and verification must be undertaken in the presence of all and Clause (4) is to the effect that the details of the allegations must be furnished to the delinquent Filed Assistant/Technical Assistant and he must be given full opportunity to deal with the same. In the instant case, the action was based upon social audit. The show cause notice itself discloses that certain items indicated therein were recovered. However, it is silent as to the persons, from whom they were recovered and the nature of allegation against the petitioner. Added to that, the 2nd respondent did not conduct any Gram Sabha as directed by this Court in W.P.No.14121 of 2009 and batch. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The 2nd respondent shall take the petitioner into service forthwith without prejudice to his right to cause enquiry and to take steps in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:14.09.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.15172 of 2011 Date: 14.09.2011 JSU