THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.26193 of 2009 ORDER: The 1st petitioner was appointed as an Attender by the Project Director, National Child Labour Project, in the year 1996, on a monthly salary of Rs.750/-. The appointment was for a period of one year, but was being extended from time to time. In the year 1998, he was designated as Clerk-cum-Accountant, and in the year 2007, he was designated as Field Officer. The 2nd petitioner was appointed as Computer Operator in the year 2007, and he too was appointed as Field Officer, later on. The 3rd petitioner joined the service of the 2nd respondent as Data Entry Operator in the year 2008. Through proceedings dated 05-11-2009, the 2nd respondent terminated the services of the petitioners on the instructions issued by the 1st respondent. It was mentioned that the performance of the petitioners is poor and that the same has resulted in adverse impact upon the functioning of the Project. The petitioners challenge the said order. They plead that at no point of time any adverse entries were communicated to them, and the termination of their services by the appointing authority, at the instance of the 1st respondent is totally untenable. It is also stated that neither any enquiry was conducted, nor any notice was issued. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. The fact that the petitioners were appointed in various projects is admitted. It is however stated that some complaints were received as to the functioning of the petitioners and after calling for remarks from the concerned, the 1st respondent issued directions to the 2nd respondent to terminate the services of the petitioners. Heard Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2. The initial appointment of the petitioners was for a limited period. However, the period of appointment of the petitioners was not only extended, but also some of them were promoted to higher posts. In case, anything adverse, as to the functioning of the petitioners was found, it was always open to the respondents, particularly, the appointing authority, the 2nd respondent herein, to take necessary action. Left to himself, he did not initiate any steps. It was only on oral instructions issued by the 1st respondent, that the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order. It was clearly mentioned that the termination was on account of the poor performance of the petitioners. The impugned order suffers from two defects: The first is that, it was passed by the appointing authority, on the instructions issued by the District Collector, the 1st respondent. Such a course is totally impermissible. Secondly, though adverse comments were made against the petitioners, neither any enquiry was held, nor the petitioners were put on notice. On these two grounds, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. It is left open to the 2nd respondent to conduct enquiry against the petitioners, after issuing notice, and complete the exercise within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further steps would depend upon the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. If no proceedings are instituted within four months, or they are not concluded within that period, the 2nd respondent shall reinstate the petitioners, without prejudice to his right, to proceed further. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.29-08-2011. KO