IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.13689 OF 2011 Date:30.06.2011 Between:- R.Narayana .. Petitioner And The District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor and others. .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.13689 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to impugned termination order vide Roc No.K6/33/2010 dated 24.01.2011 passed by respondent No.2 and quash the same by holding it as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Field Assistant with all consequential benefits. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant to work in Gangudupalli Grampanchayat in Chandragiri Mandal, Chittoor District on 04.04.2008 by respondent No.3 under NREG scheme. Initially, respondent No.3 issued the impugned termination order without issuing any show cause notice or calling for the explanation or without conducting any enquiry solely on the ground that the villagers have passed a resolution in Grama Sabha for termination of his service as he has a dealership for running ration shop and his wife is working as an Anganwadi Worker. The wife of petitioner has authorization to run fair price shop No.28 of Gangudupalli Village, Chandragiri Mandal and working as Anganwadi worker on honorarium basis. The respondents advised him to submit resignation of his wife as fair price shop dealer and after her resignation, the termination orders would be cancelled. His wife submitted resignation on 15.07.2009. When he approached the respondents and requested to cancel the impugned termination order, the respondents informed him that once he is terminated from services, he could not be reinstated into service. Aggrieved by this, he filed W.P.No.22976 of 2009, which was disposed of with a direction to file an appeal before respondent No.2 within a period of four weeks and respondent No.2 was directed to pass orders in the appeal within four weeks thereafter. He filed appeal before respondent No.2 on 24.02.2010. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.3 issued an order of recovery for Rs.71,029/- on the ground of alleged mis-appropriation of funds without any notice or conducting any enquiry. Questioning the impugned order of recovery, he filed W.P.No.6530 of 2010 and obtained interim stay of recovery. As respondent No.2 is threatening him with dire consequences without disposing of the appeal, he filed another writ petition, which was disposed of with a direction to dispose of the appeal. The FAC Officer of respondent No.2 passed orders vide Roc No.K6/125/2010, dated 25.05.2010, upholding the orders of respondent No.3 terminating his services vide impugned proceedings Roc.No.01/EGS/2009, dated 13.07.2009, without giving any notice or opportunity. Respondent No.2 contended that the impugned order of termination, dated 13.07.2009, is only on the ground that his wife was handling both Anganwadi worker and fair price shop dealership posts and upheld the order of respondent No.3 on the ground that respondent No.3 has issued a notice for recovery of Rs.71,029/- basing on the social audit report, which was said to have been conducted behind his back after he was removed from service. Later, the order of recovery was set aside. Aggrieved by the order of respondent No.2 terminating his service by upholding the orders of respondent No.3, he filed W.P.No.13321 of 2010 wherein an interim order was passed that the impugned order was passed for extraneous reasons and without putting the petitioner on notice. Pursuant to the interim orders, the respondents have reinstated him into service. W.P.No.13321 of 2010 was disposed of on 22.10.2010 with some directions. One of the directions therein is that if a report of the Gram Panchayat is received by the disciplinary authority, a copy of the same shall be furnished to the delinquent Field Assistant/Technical Assistant and if any witnesses are mentioned therein, they shall be examined in the presence of such Field Assistant/Technical Assistant and they shall be permitted to cross examine such witnesses and if action is based on a social audit, majority members of the Gram Panchayat and the delinquent Field Assistant/Technical Assistant must be invited to the Gram Sabha and in their presence, Gram Sabha should be conducted and in all the cases where recovery is contemplated, a fresh enquiry shall be conducted and completed as per the directions of the Court within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. If any separate recovery proceedings are issued in pursuance of the impugned proceedings, they shall stand stayed during the pendency of fresh enquiry. Respondent No.2 issued proceedings vide Roc.No.K1/966/2010, dated 31.12.2010, under the caption of notice directed to appear in his office on 10.01.2011 for enquiry. The said proceedings were issued without there being any show cause notice on the alleged misappropriation. The petitioner appeared for enquiry on 10.01.2011 before respondent No.2 but no enquiry was conducted. Again respondent No.2 issued proceedings Roc.No.K6/1166/2010 dated 12.01.2011 under the caption of notice stating that as per the report of the social audit team, it is proved that an amount of Rs.1,337/- is misappropriated and ordered for recovery and hence, he is directed to remit the said amount before 17.01.2011 and appear in person before respondent No.2 with all the records for enquiry. Though the petitioner appeared before respondent No.2 on 24.01.2011, no villagers were called for any enquiry on the allegations said to have been made by the social audit team. Respondent No.2 issued show cause notice on 24.01.2011 on certain allegations basing on the social audit report on the alleged misappropriation of Rs.70,039/- and directed him to submit his explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice and appear for personal enquiry on 07.02.2011 before respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 served the show cause notice on 28.01.2011. He submitted his explanation to the show cause notice and appeared before respondent No.2 on 07.02.2011. Respondent No.2 has not called any of the wage seekers or villagers for conducting enquiry. Respondent No.2 conducted the enquiry and directed him to pay the amount. He has not misappropriated any amount and as per the musters, the wages have been remitted to the Branch Post Office for payment of wages to the wage seekers. The wages have been paid through post office by crediting to their SB Accounts. His involvement is not there in payment of the wages to the wage seekers and he has no authority to draw the amount. The amount will be deposited in post office through cheque. The respondents have not followed the directions of this Court in W.P.Nos.13321 and 6530 of 2010 and no enquiry was conducted. Personal hearing followed only after the enquiry. Respondent No.2, while directing him to appear for enquiry on 07.02.2011, simply passed the impugned order of termination and recovery on 24.01.2011 but served subsequently. In the impugned order, the social audit inspection report between 06.12.2009 to 13.12.2009 was referred to whereas in the show cause notice dated 24.01.2011, the social audit inspection report from 21.06.2009 to 01.07.2009 was referred to. Further, in the impugned order, the show cause notice Roc.No.K6/33/2010, dated 21.01.2011, was referred. That show cause notice has not been issued to him. On 24.01.2011, he appeared for enquiry but no wage seekers or any villager was called for enquiry and no enquiry was conducted. The procedure followed by respondent No.2 is only an eyewash with predetermined action of termination and recovery. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Certain guidelines were framed in Circular No.143/SRDS/ HR Manual/2009, dated 27.01.2010, and the rules laid down vide G.O.Ms.No.98, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (RD.II) Department, dated 09.03.2010, for the purpose of conducting enquiry, social audit etc. Admittedly that procedure has not been followed by the respondents. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned termination order vide Roc No.K6/33/2010, dated 24.01.2011. However, it will not preclude the respondents in initiating any disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the circular and G.Os., as referred to. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 30th June, 2011. Note:- Furnish C.C. by 04.07.2011. B/O AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.13689 OF 2011 Date:30.06.2011 AMD