IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6335 of 2009 Between: Smt.D.Laxmi ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector and District Programme Coordinator (E.G.S) Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District and six others. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.VENUGOPAL REDDY GODDINDLA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.6335 of 2009 ORDER: The facts, which largely are not in dispute, demonstrate how a functionary at the lowest rung is made a scapegoat while employees occupying higher positions are allowed to go scot-free. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant by respondent No.4 on contract basis. She was allotted to Lingala Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. She has accordingly taken charge of the said post. The petitioner was kept additional charge of Komatikunta village of Lingala Mandal in November 2007. By that time, the work of construction of percolation tank, situated in that village, sanctioned in the year 2006, was completed under the supervision of one Bhaskar, Technical Assistant, and he was suspended on the strength of social audit findings by respondent No.1. By proceedings dated 30-06-2008, respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioner calling for explanation from her as to why her contract appointment shall not be cancelled and she be not removed as she has shown negligence leading to misappropriation of funds to the extent of Rs.1,20,952/- on account of recording of higher measurements than the work actually executed. Through her reply, dated 14-08-2008, she gave a detailed explanation, wherein, she, inter alia, stated that she was not in-charge of the work when it was under execution. She has not taken measurements of the work. The said measurements were taken by the Assistant Engineer (P.R.). As social audit has taken place at that time, the Technical Assistant, who was in-charge of the said work at that time, was suspended. The petitioner has neither made the estimates nor taken the measurements and the measurements were not in her handwriting, but they were in the handwriting of Assistant Engineer (P.R.). She further stated that in November 2007, the bill pertaining to the said work was prepared and at that time, the petitioner was given in- charge of the said work in the presence of the President, Mandal Parishad (M.P.P.), Mandal Parishad Development Officer (M.P.D.O.), the Project Officer and the Assistant Engineer (P.R.). It is further stated that she was asked to sign on the measurement book. She declined to sign by stating that she was not concerned with either the execution of the work or entering the measurements into the measurements book. However, the M.P.P. and Assistant Engineer (P.R.) insisted on the petitioner to sign saying that as her superior officer has himself signed and that as the measurements were in his own handwriting, the petitioner’s interest will not be affected merely by her signing the measurements. She explained that under the said circumstances, she signed the measurement book. She further explained as to how work was divided under two different weeks and payments made. Finally, she has stated that as she did not commit any irregularity and acted under the directions of her superiors by signing the Measurement Book, she may be exonerated. On receipt of the said explanation, respondent No.4 issued further notice on 30-10-2008, wherein, the petitioner was asked to show cause why she did not bring to the notice of respondent No.1 the fact that the M.P.P. and Assistant Engineer (P.R.) compelled the petitioner to sign the Measurement Book. The petitioner gave a detailed reply on 01-11-2008, wherein, she sought to explain that as the Assistant Engineer, who has the power of making check measurements, insisted on the petitioner and he being superior officer to her, she did not complain. She also further submitted that the Assistant Project Director, Achampet, took her to a tank, which was different from the tank for which the works were executed, and he accordingly misled the petitioner. After purporting to consider the explanations of the petitioner, respondent No.4 passed order dated 27-12-2008 removing the petitioner from the post of Technical Assistant. He stated in the said order that it is established that the petitioner has signed the Measurement Book on the insistence of her higher officers without actually taking the measurements and that this has resulted in misappropriation of funds at a huge scale. The petitioner filed appeal against the said order before respondent No.1 on 02-01-2009. Through the communication of respondent No.4, the petitioner was informed that the said appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by respondent No.1 vide order dated 27-02-2009. These two orders are assailed in the present writ petition. 3. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is admitted that the execution of work of tank at Komatikunta was completed under the supervision of the Technical Assistant by name M. Bhaskar, and that he was suspended on the findings given by the social audit in connection with the execution of the said work. It is also admitted that the petitioner was kept as additional charge of the said Komatikunta village in November 2007. The petitioner is accused of preparing and submitting measurements for payments without there being physical verification and taking measurements at the work spot and that she signed the measurement sheet on the insistence of her superior officers viz., Assistant Engineer, Mandal Parishad President and Mandal Panchayat Development Officer. 4. The above facts, admitted by the respondents, clearly reveal that the petitioner was neither concerned with the execution nor entering of the measurements in the Measurement Book. Her explanation that she was forcibly signed by the three superior functionaries viz., M.P.P., Assistant Engineer and the M.P.D.O. is neither disbelieved nor disputed. On the other hand, accepting her explanation as correct, she was given show cause notice on 30-10- 2008 as to why she did not complain to the District Collector against the said three functionaries that she was forced to sign on their insistence. 5. It is indeed perplexing that respondent No.1 has not mentioned in the counter affidavit that what action is initiated against the three functionaries viz., the Assistant Engineer, the M.P.P. and the M.P.D.O., who appear to have indulged in entering wrong measurements in the Measurement Book and forcing the petitioner to sign thereon by using their superior official position. Instead of addressing these empirical issues, respondents 1 and 4 virtually made the petitioner a scapegoat by terminating her contract appointment. If respondents 1 and 4 were interested in punishing the real culprits, they should have initiated action against the abovementioned three functionaries by ordering a thorough probe into the illegalities that have taken place resulting in misappropriation of huge funds. Neither of the two respondents appeared to have realized that it is only the said superior functionaries, at whose instance, the petitioner was made to act in signing the measurement books which according to the petitioner were already entered by the Assistant Engineer (P.R.), the check measuring authority, in his own handwriting and signed by him. The termination of the contract appointment of the petitioner was not preceded by a proper probe and the only reason given by the respondent No.4 in the order of removal of the petitioner is that she signed the Measurement Books on the insistence of her superior officers which resulted in misuse of funds. 6. In my considered view, the petitioner should not have been punished for succumbing to the pressure of her superior officers while sparing the latter. In the absence of any mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner to misappropriate funds, termination of her contract is wholly arbitrary and shockingly disproportionate to the alleged irregularity imputed to her. Instead, respondent No.1 should have administered a caution to her to be careful in future. Therefore, order dated 27-12-2008, which is stated to have been confirmed by respondent No.1 in appeal, is set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in the post of the Technical Assistant. Respondent No.1 is directed to initiate a detailed enquiry into the alleged omissions and commissions of the Assistant Engineer (P.R.), the M.P.P. and the M.P.D.O. (respondent No.3) and take departmental action against them, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the aforementioned directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________________ Date: 22-04-2009 C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J KVR