HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITON No.25947 OF 2011 ORDER: This Court is virtually feeling surprised about the way in which the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) is being operated and in particular the persons working thereunder are being dealt with. Despite the fact that huge funds are being handled by them, the officials do not appear to be interested to know the fundamentals of the running of the administration. The result is that large-scale corruption is going on either unnoticed or unchecked. The case in hand presents an instance of that nature. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant under the NREGS for Bommaigaripalli Village, Veduru Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District. On earlier occasion, he was removed from service straightaway by the Project Director, District Water Management Agency, Chittoor, the 2nd respondent herein, without conducting any enquiry. The petitioner filed W.P. No.14796 of 2010. Since no rules or procedure were prescribed at the relevant point of time, detailed guidelines were stipulated by this Court and the order of removal was set aside. It was left open to the 2nd respondent to proceed in accordance with law. 3. The 2nd respondent issued notices, dated 28-01-2011 and 21-06-2011, to the petitioner. Explanation was submitted by the petitioner on 04-07-2011. Personal hearing has also taken place on 04-07-2011. The only step that was to follow was to pass final orders. The 2nd respondent, however, exhibited his ignorance or lack of basic knowledge and has chosen to pass an order, dated 19-07-2011, placing the petitioner under suspension. The same is challenged in this writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. One cannot expect a better way of implementation of a Scheme with allocation of huge funds when it is handled and administered by persons, who do not know the basics of law or administration. In case, the petitioner was found to have resorted on any act of mis-conduct or mis-appropriation, notice could have been issued to him and enquiry ought to have been conducted followed by the final orders. Straightaway an order of removal was passed, and that naturally was set aside by this Court. Detailed guidelines were issued taking note of the orders and memos in force, from time to time. 6. It is true that the 2nd respondent issued notice to the petitioner and the latter, in turn, submitted his explanation. Personal hearing was also given. The occasion to place an employee under suspension would arise only when an enquiry is contemplated and the charges or allegations are grave in nature. The 2nd respondent did not feel the necessity of placing the petitioner under suspension when he issued show cause notice, or the charge memo. It is only after the enquiry is concluded and hearing is given, that he has placed the petitioner under suspension. The procedure adopted by the 2nd respondent is totally untenable in law. It is on account of the failure of the 2nd respondent to follow the basic procedure, that this Court has intervened earlier, and has set aside the orders passed against the petitioner. 7. The District Collector, before whom the appeal was filed, has virtually competed with the 2nd respondent. What is presented before him, is an appeal, and he ought to have decided the matter on its own merits. Instead, he has referred the matter to the 2nd respondent, against whose order the appeal was filed. The above narration presents an unfortunate episode. 8. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the 2nd respondent is directed to take the petitioner into service forthwith. It is, however, left open to him to pass final orders after reinstating the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J September 16, 2011 KTL