IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11802 of 2008 Between: Annamneni Rajsekhar S/o. Anjaiah R/o. Kalukuntla Village Manopad Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector-cum-Programme Co-ordinator, EGS, Mahaboobnagar District. 2 The Project Director / Addl. Programme Co-ordinator (EGS) DWMA, Mahaboobnagar. 3 The Mandal Parishat Development Officr, M.P.P. Manopad, Mahaboobnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the Notice issued by the 3rd respondent in Lr.No.240 EGS-08, dt. 03.05.2008 removing the petitioner from the post of Field Assistant, without issuing any notice and without following the due process of Law, as illegal, arbitrary, against to the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in the post of Field Assistant of Kalukuntla Village, Manopad Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, by continuing the petitioner as Field Assistant and to grant such other relief or reliefs. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.PRABHAKAR BOMMAGANI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner challenges the notice, dated 03.05.2008, issued by the third respondent. The petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant for execution of the works under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme for Kalukuntla Village, Manopad Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. The third respondent issued a notice, dated 02.01.2008, to the petitioner, stating that in the social audit, it was found that the petitioner was liable to refund a sum of Rs.16,666/- and he was required to pay the same. There was no response for this notice from the petitioner. Therefore, the third respondent issued the impugned notice stating that, in case the petitioner does not refund the amount within one week from the date of receipt of notice, he would be removed from the post and further steps would be taken in accordance with the directions issued by the authorities at the district level. The petitioner contends that he has not misused any funds and the impugned notice amounts to almost removal from service. He contends that the impugned order was not preceded by any notice, or enquiry. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. By itself, the impugned notice does not bring about termination of the petitioner at all. It only requires the petitioner to remit certain amount. Even this was preceded by a notice, dated 02.01.2008. The petitioner is not able to state as to the action taken by him to the notice, dated 02.01.2008. At any rate, no cause of action arises, through the impugned notice. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:12.06.2008 GJ