IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.32398 of 2011 Between: Smt. Sk.Saidabee … Petitioner and The District Water Management Agency, (DWMA) Rep.by its Project Director, Khammam Districat and another. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.32398 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the 2nd respondent vide RC. No.M.N.R.E.G.S/Spl/2011, dated 08.08.2011, removing the petitioner from service as Field Assistant, and also inaction on the part of the 1st respondent in considering her representation/appeal dated 17.08.2011, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the order dated 08.08.2011 and further direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service by granting all consequential benefits. Brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was working as Field Assistant in National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, (NREGS), Allapadu Village, Bonakal Mandal, Khammam district, the 2nd respondent, Mandal Parishad Development Officer, issued show cause notice dated 01.08.2011 alleging dereliction of duties and directed her to submit explanation, within three days. In response to the said show cause notice, the petitioner, while denying the allegations leveled against her, submitted her explanation on 06.08.2011. Thereafter, without conducting any enquiry and without providing opportunity of being heard, the 2nd respondent issued order dated 08.08.2011, removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the said order dated 08.08.2011, she filed an appeal dated 17.08.2011 before the 1st respondent, District Water Management Agency, and the 1st respondent did not pass any orders thereon. Hence, she filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in response to the show cause notice dated 01.08.2011, the petitioner submitted her explanation on 06.08.2011 but the 2nd respondent, without proper appreciation of the explanation offered by her and without providing any opportunity of being heard, passed the impugned removal order dated 08.08.2011. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside on the ground of principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that assailing the removal order dated 08.08.2011, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent did not pass any orders on the said appeal and the same is still pending before him. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondents would submit that having aggrieved by the removal order, the petitioner stated to have filed an appeal before the 1st respondent on 17.08.2011 and the same is pending. Pending the appeal, filing the writ petition amounts to allowing the parallel proceedings to be commenced and the same is not desirable. Therefore, it is submitted that the 1st respondent may be directed to dispose of the appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. Admittedly, the petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 08.08.2011 against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 17.08.2011 before the 1st respondent and the same is pending. Hence, without going into the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the 1st respondent, District Water Management Agency, is directed to consider appeal dated 17.08.2011, stated to have been preferred by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 09.12.2011 LSK