THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.1889 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant under the National Rural Employment Guaranteed Scheme by the 2nd respondent in the Chittoor District. Through order, dated 06.03.2008, the 2nd respondent removed the petitioner from service, on the ground that the report, dated 07.12.2007, submitted by the Social Audit Team revealed that the petitioner misappropriated funds under the scheme. Reference was also made to the proceedings, dated 05.03.2008, issued by the District Collector, the 1st respondent. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order before the 1st respondent. This was followed by a show cause notice, dated 02.09.2008, issued by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner challenges the order, dated 06.03.2008. He contends that the impugned proceedings are violative of principles of natural justice and that the subsequent show cause notice is without any purpose. On behalf of respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner on the basis of the social audit report, and on finding that he misappropriated funds under the Scheme, he was removed from service. It is stated that subsequent show cause notice was issued on the directions of the 1st respondent. The respondents further contend that on the basis of the interim direction issued by this Court, the petitioner was re- engaged in a different mandal. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent. It is rather unfortunate that a scheme, under which huge funds are being operated without a foolproof mechanism. Everything appears to be on ad hoc basis. The impugned order does not make any reference to any show cause notice. Added to that, a show cause notice is issued after the removal order is passed. The whole exercise is, in a very bad taste. It reflects either lack of experience, or non- application of mind, even to the basic principles. The 2nd respondent appeared and he states that due attention would be paid to the matters of this nature. The petitioner does not have any grievance, inasmuch as he has already been accommodated. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that the order challenged in the writ petition shall not be treated as an impediment for the petitioner to continue in the present assignment. If the petitioner is found to have resorted to any illegalities or irregularities, it shall be open to the respondents to take necessary action in accordance with law. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.26.07.2010. GJ