THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.18854 OF 2009 Dated: 08.12.2009 Between: Bendi Surapu Naidu … Petitioner And 1. The District Collector, Srikakulam and Two others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.18854 OF 2009 ORDER : The petitioner herein was appointed as a Field Assistant in the year 2007 for the purpose of works under the National Rural Employment Guarantee (NREG) Scheme in Ponduru Mandal. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 20.07.2009 passed by the 3rd respondent – Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Mandal Praza Parishad, Ponduru, whereby the petitioner’s services as Field Assistant were terminated on the ground of alleged misappropriation of NREG Scheme funds. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice dated 4.7.2009 calling upon him to explain the alleged misappropriation of funds as revealed from the social audit report. The petitioner states that he has submitted his explanation on 10.7.2009 itself denying the allegations. It is contended that the impugned order of termination which has been passed by the 3rd respondent without considering the petitioner’s explanation dated 10.7.2009 and without conducting any enquiry is arbitrary and illegal apart from being violative of the principles of natural justice. It is also contended that though as per the social audit report, the 3rd respondent was also made responsible for the alleged misappropriation of funds apart from others, the petitioner alone was singled out and removed from service. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. As could be seen, the petitioner was appointed as Filed Assistant of Kintalai Village, Ponduru Mandal of Srikakulam District, under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. His appointment was purely on temporary basis. The post itself is created for ensuring better implementation of NREG Scheme in the village level for providing wage employment to labourers. The NREGS Act provides for social audits and in such social audit conducted from 10.5.2009 to 19.5.2009 in respect of the works in Kintali Village, it was found that the petitioner was also responsible for misappropriation of the NREGS funds to the tune of Rs.10,80,245/-. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that several complaints were received by the District Collector, Srikakulam from the villagers of Kintali Village complaining about the alleged malpractices committed by the petitioner and the same were also found to be true in the social audit. Hence, a show-cause notice was issued giving an opportunity to the petitioner to meet the said allegations and since he failed to submit his explanation, the impugned order of termination was passed. It is further stated that appropriate action will be initiated against all the persons responsible for the alleged misappropriation of NREGS funds including the 3rd respondent following due process of law. The correctness of such conclusions arrived at cannot be gone into and decided by this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore the matter does not deserve consideration by this Court. However, as per the Circular No.7548/RD.V(1)/2008, dated 22.11.2008 issued by the Commissioner of Rural Development, A.P., Hyderabad, a remedy of appeal is provided against an order passed by the MPDO to PD,DWMA. If the order of termination is passed by the Project Director, the appeal lies to DPC/Collector. The Circular also provides that the appellate authority should dispose of the appeal within a stipulated time. Having regard to the said efficacious alternative remedy of appeal available to the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order of termination before the PD, DWMA, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of such appeal, the PD, DWMA, shall make the necessary enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 08.12.2009 gbs