HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.3469 of 2010 Date: April 6, 2010 Between: R. Ramulu, S/o. Balaswamy, aged about 31 years, Occ: Field Assistant, Laknaram village, Telkapally Mandal, Mahabubnagar District … Petitioner And The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, M.P., Telkapally, Mahabubnagar District, and two others … Respondents Order: The petitioner, a Field Assistant appointed under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) programme, has questioned proceedings No.M1/EGS/2010, dated 18-01-2010. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as Field Assistant under the aforesaid scheme, on contract basis, vide proceedings dated 20-09-2007 and his services are being extended from time to time. While so, impugned proceedings are issued terminating his services on the ground that he has misappropriated certain amount, which is allotted for implementation of the said scheme. The impugned proceedings are questioned on the ground that no enquiry is conducted before issuing the same. A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents, denying the allegations made by the petitioner. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant on contract basis under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme in the year 2007. It is stated that social audit conducted on the works in the said scheme revealed that the petitioner misappropriated an amount of Rs.2,83,920/-, by incorporating the names of wage-seekers. It is further stated that in view of the said allegation, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 11-08- 2009 and in spite of the same, he has not responded; in that view of the matter, in view of the instructions of the Project Director, DWMA, Mahabubnagar vide Lr.No.D5/949, dated 03-01-2010, his services are terminated. The counter affidavit further states in view of the guidelines issued under the scheme in question, an appeal is provided against the order of removal to the District Collector concerned. The petitioner, who was appointed as Field Assistant under the Scheme in question, has been terminated from services on an allegation that he has misappropriated certain amount. While it is the case of the petitioner that the impugned proceedings are issued without conducting any enquiry, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents states that the petitioner was given a show-cause notice, but he failed to submit any explanation. Further, though the Scheme itself provides an appeal to the District Collector against the impugned proceedings, the petitioner, without availing the remedy of appeal, approached this court. When an appeal is provided in the Scheme itself, to the District Collector, there is no reason for the petitioner to bypass the remedy of appeal available to him and approach this court. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings. But, however, as the petitioner has not exhausted the remedy of appeal, I dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to file an appeal, against the impugned proceedings, before the competent authority within a period of four weeks from today. In such an event, I am sure that the appellate authority will entertain the same without reference to limitation and pass appropriate orders. As much as it is stated that the petitioner is taken into servie pursuant to the interim order, he shall be continued as such for a period of four weeks. No order as to costs. _____________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) April 6, 2010 MRR