THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.3767 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted by a Technical Assistant employed under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme at Ananatapur, calling in question the orders passed by the Project Director on 07-01-2011, terminating her employment. Earlier, the writ petitioner has approached this Court by instituting W.P.No.10528 of 2010. That writ petition is disposed of by an order passed on 05-10-2010 directing the respondents to pass fresh orders as to the recovery of the amounts from the petitioner and the exercise was asked to be completed within a period of six weeks. As a measure of implementation of the said order, present impugned order is passed. It is stated that the Additional Project Director (Water Sheds-II), Anantapur conducted an inquiry and filed report on 27- 12-2010. At my request, the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development has secured the said report and placed it before me. It is no doubt true that the writ petitioner Smt. M. Noor Afroz appeared before the said Inquiry Officer, namely, the Additional Project Director, and raised several objections, which were faithfully recorded by him. He has not given any findings as to whether the petitioner can be said to be guilty of any of the allegations leveled against her or not, but however, he has concluded the issue directing that a sum of Rs.5,57,717/- may be recovered from the six persons, whose names have been mentioned therein, of which the writ petitioner is one. If the writ petitioner’s services as a Technical Assistant are required to be terminated on the ground that she is either responsible for causing loss or for any conduct, which has been found to be objectionable, a preliminary inquiry ought to have been conducted. Obviously, for the said purpose the Additional Project Director has been appointed. Except recording objections, the Additional Project Director has not rendered any findings. Without any findings, he, merely, proceeded to conclude the issue directing the said money be recovered from six individuals and included the name of the writ petitioner amongst them. It is appropriate that the Inquiry Officer must place such material, which has been collected by them or the material which has been gathered, which speaks of the improper conduct against the petitioner and supply the same to the petitioner so that she will be able to explain the said material or circumstance and thereafter, consider for their acceptability or tenability. Only in which event that the allegations leveled or made against the petitioner are found to be tenable, perhaps, the penal action can flow, but not until then. In view of the lacuna noticed and also that the Inquiry Officer has not found the petitioner guilty of the allegations thrown against her, the impugned order is unsustainable. Hence, it is set aside. The matter is remanded back for conducting the inquiry afresh in the presence of the petitioner. Only, in the event it is clear that the petitioner is guilty of a misconduct or misdemeanor, then appropriate action in the matter may be taken by the Project Director. Let this exercise be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such an exercise is completed, no recovery be effected from the petitioner. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of at the admission stage. No costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 7th March 2011