HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21680 of 2010 Date 06.09.2010 Between: Sreeramineni Srinivasa Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector-cum-District Project Coordinator, National Rural Employment Guaranteed Scheme (NREGS), Guntur, Guntur District & others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri A.Chandraiah Naidu Counsel for the Respondents : AGP for Panchayat Raj HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21680 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash the proceedings dated 12.08.2010 issued by respondent No.3 and consequential urgent notice dated 24.08.2010 issued by respondent No.4. The petitioner is a field assistant attached to Nujendla Gram Panchayat under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (for short ‘NREGS’). Respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice dated 12.08.2010 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation why his services as field assistant should not be terminated for the alleged irregularities mentioned therein. On the same day, respondent No.3 issued the impugned proceedings directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,94,215/- allegedly misappropriated by him in the execution of various works undertaken under the above mentioned scheme and that failing which the proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act would be initiated for recovery of the amount. Following the said proceedings, respondent No.4 issued a notice dated 24.08.2010, wherein the petitioner was granted three days time for payment of the above mentioned sum, failing which his immovable properties will be auctioned. The above two proceedings have been questioned by the petitioner principally on the ground that they are in violation of the principles of natural justice. Sri A.Chandraiah Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that having issued a show cause notice on 12.08.2010, respondent No.3 has issued the impugned proceedings calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount within seven days. He submitted that the said proceeding was not preceded by an enquiry and an opportunity to the petitioner to put-forth his defence. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj submitted that no formal enquiry was held before proceedings dated 12.08.2010, impugned in this Writ Petition, have been issued. He has, however, stated that in reply to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he has submitted his explanation and the enquiry is scheduled to be held on 14.09.2010. On the admitted facts of this case, the proceedings dated 12.08.2010, by which the petitioner is called upon to pay the amount of Rs.2,94,215/-, were not preceded by an enquiry. The law is well settled, that no order resulting in adverse civil consequences can be passed against a person without affording him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Ironically while on the one hand a show cause notice was given proposing the petitioner’s termination, simultaneously the impugned proceedings are passed. Though the recovery of the alleged misappropriated amount and termination of service are two different and distinct aspects, both these actions stem from the common allegations. This being so, there was no justification for respondent No.3 to seek to recover the alleged misappropriated amount even before the petitioner submitted his explanation and the same is considered by respondent No.3. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are set aside. Respondent No.3 is, however, given liberty to conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders thereafter. As a sequel to disposal of the main petition, WPMP.No.27584 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:06.09.2010 Usd