THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 27535 of 2008 DATED:09.02.2009 Between: Doulanna and others …..Petitioners AND The District Collector-cum-Programme Co-ordinator, EGS, Mahaboobnagar District And others ….Respondents THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 27535 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners, who are three in number, filed the writ petition assailing the action of the Mandal Parishat Development Officer-3rd respondent in removing them from the post of Field Assistants without issuing any notice and without following the due process of law. The petitioners are appointed as Field Assistants in implementation of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. An enquiry came to be conducted with regard to certain irregularities in payment of amount under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. The 3rd respondent removed the petitioners from the post of Field Assistants on the ground of certain irregularities in performing their duties as Field Assistants. It is the grievance of the petitioners that they have been removed without putting them on notice of the allegations made against them and without following the principles of natural justice. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri G. Elisha, the learned Standing Counsel of Zilla Parishats, Mandal Parishats and Gram Panchayats received notice on behalf of the third respondent and Sri Janaki Rami Reddy, the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj received notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. The third respondent filed counter-affidavit. One P. Nagendra has sworn to the counter-affidavit. It is stated that the proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners basing on the evidence of the ‘The Village Social Audit Committee’. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the first petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.1410/- on 17.11.2008 by way of Challan in the A.P.Gramina Vikas Bank, Dharoor Branch. For better appreciation, I may refer paras 4 and 5 of the counter-affidavit and they read as hereunder:- “I submit that, according to the NRGES Norms for every District the committee has been constituted to verify the works under taken under the scheme and also to verify the performance of the concerned employees engaged under the scheme. This committee is called as “Village Social Auditors”. This village “Social Audit Committee” once in a year visit all the mandals and verify the works completed and yet to complete and submit their report to the concerned officials for taking further steps to implement the object of the scheme. It is also pertinent to mention here that the “Village Social Audit” will also assess the performance of the Field Assistants, Technical Assistants and other concerned working under this scheme. The village Social Audit is also uathroized to conduct the public hearing in the Mandal Headquarters in the presence of concerned representatives of the Mandal will conduct the public hearing. The erred officers would be called for their explanation in the presence of the public and other officials, the statement would be recorded and the village social audit will submit the report to the competent authority for taking proper action. The decision of the Social Audit would be final that’s how the village Social Audit will work. I submit that, the village Social Audit visited the Dharoor Mandal from 22-11-2007 to 29.11.2007. After that on 29.11.2007 at 10 ‘O clock at Mandal Parishad Office, Dharoor, public hearing was conducted in the presence of concerned officials, labour, people representatives. So far as the first petitioner is concerned the enquiry conducted by the Social Audit, in the enquiry it is revealed by the public that the 1st petitioner has misappropriated the amount of Rs.26,411/-, hence the Village Social Audit recommended for his removal, so far as the 2nd petitioner herein concerned the 1st allegation is he has misappropriated Rs.6,400/- for the basement bill, 2nd allegation is he has withdrawn Rs.4,158/- from the benami account No.111550 of Jayamma W/o. Narasimhulu. The village Social Audit in view of the above allegations recommended for his removal. The 3rd petitioner herein is concerned though the Labour have not worked for the particular work the 3rd petitioner has withdrawn Rs.11,005/- and misappropriated. This is the statement given by the labour of that particular village in writing.” Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Janaki Rami Reddy, the Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri G. Elisha, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were removed from service without following any procedure and contrary to the principles of natural justice, and therefore, removal orders passed by the third respondent are liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 07.07.2008 passed in W.P.No.1867 of 2008 and batch (VADDE LAKSHMI Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS), wherein the order of removal came to set aside. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the order passed in the above batch of writ petition, which reads as hereunder:- “The basis for the action of the respondents, as indicated in the counter affidavits, is that allegations of financial irregularities were received against the petitioners. An enquiry is said to have been conducted. However, neither any notice was issued to the petitioners, nor any enquiry was conducted against them. From the averments of the counter affidavits, it is evident that the termination of the contract was not either on expiry of the term, or a termination simplicitor. When serious allegations of financial emoluments are made, against the petitioners, it is obligatory on the part of the respondents, to issue notices, pointing out the allegations, before any action is taken thereon. Failure to issue notice, before terminating the services of the petitioners, would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. On this short ground, the action of the respondents, in terminating the services of the petitioners, is liable to be set aside.” The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent submits that the petitioners were put on notice with regard to the allegations leveled, before passing the impugned order in the writ petition. The learned Standing Counsel placed the entire record before this Court. As seen fro the record, the petitioners were put on notice with regard to the allegations levelled against them. They received notices and they did not choose to reply. Thereupon, the third respondent proceeded to terminate their services. The petitioners having not availed the opportunity of responding to the notices served on them cannot be permitted to contend that the order impugned in the writ petition came to be passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Since the third respondent issued notices to the petitioners putting them on notice of the allegations levelled against them, it cannot be said that the order impugned in the writ petition is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 9th February, 2009 bud