IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.19021 OF 2011 Date:08.07. 2011 Between:- B.Suyodhana .. Petitioner And The District Collector and District Programme Coordinator, MGNREGS, Srikakulam and others. .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.19021 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring proceedings Rc.No.474/2010/E2/HRM, dated 10.03.2011, of respondent No.2 in terminating the petitioner as Field Assistant without conducting any enquiry as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Field Assistant in Pathapatnam Grampanchayat, Pathapatnam Mandal, Srikakulam District. 2. The petitioner has been appointed as Field Assistant of Pathapatnam Grampanchayath by respondent No.3 and was discharging his duties. There were two political groups in that village and the persons, who were enimical to the petitioner, inducted some of the wage seekers and managed to take signatures and prepared complaints alleging that though the wage seekers did not attend the work, their names have been entered in muster roll and though some of the wage seekers attended the work, they have not been paid the wages and the petitioner has withdrawn those wages on benami names. The social audit team, without examining the labourers and without giving any opportunity, submitted social audit report, dated 03.09.2010 to respondent No.2 basing on which, respondent No.2 issued show cause notice on 27.09.2010 calling for explanation for the alleged charges. The petitioner submitted his explanation stating that he never misappropriated any amounts and wage seekers also made a representation that they received wages through post office. The wage seekers stated in their representation that the petitioner did not withdraw the wages on benami names. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued notice, dated 06.11.2010, requesting the petitioner to appear personally along with documentary evidence, if any. The petitioner appeared on 15.11.2010. Respondent No.2, without conducting any enquiry and without considering the material on record, passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.2, he filed an appeal before respondent No.1 in the month of April, 2011 and the same is pending. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner preferred an appeal in the month of April, 2011 to respondent No.1- The District Collector and District Programme Coordinator and the same is pending before respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 is not disposing of it. 4. Heard Sri M.Subrahmanyam, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri G.Elisha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 5. The petitioner cannot be permitted to prosecute two parallel proceedings in respect of the same cause of action. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 is statutory appellate authority. Therefore, respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner in the month of April, 2011, in accordance with law, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and thereafter communicate the order to the petitioner. 6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 08th July, 2011. Note:- Furnish C.C. by one week. B/O. AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.19021 OF 2011 Date:08.07.2011 AMD