THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.24689 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant for Nowlekal Village, Peddakadabur Mandal, Kurnool District, under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. In the social audit conducted for the village, it was pointed out that the petitioner is responsible for misappropriation of about Rs.15,000/-. A show cause notice was issued, on 03.07.2010, directing him to explain as to why he shall not be removed from that post. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 20.07.2010. Taking the same into account, the 2nd respondent passed an order, dated 24.07.2010, directing removal of the petitioner. The same was implemented through proceedings, dated 28.07.2010 issued by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner challenges the said proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents did not conduct any enquiry, before removing the petitioner from service. He contends that a detailed explanation was submitted and it was incumbent upon the respondents to conduct enquiry. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner, in fact, admitted that the amount was unaccounted for, but tried to blame mates, who are engaged in the village. He contends that, once a show cause notice was issued and the petitioner was given an opportunity, the impugned proceedings does not warrant any interference. He further submits that the petitioner is already working as a fair price shop dealer. The show cause notice issued to the petitioner was preceded by a social audit. It was mentioned in the show cause notice that the petitioner is responsible for a sum of Rs.14,880/-. In the explanation submitted by him, the petitioner did not dispute that the said amount was misappropriated or unaccounted for. He threw blame on the very concept of appointment of mates, who are said to be in-charge for each set of 20 workers. The scheme is framed such that, no worker can be paid the wages, unless certified by the Field Assistant. Therefore, the petitioner was required to be more cautious and careful. At any rate, the removal of the petitioner was preceded by a show cause notice and no exception can be taken to the impugned proceedings, particularly when he did not dispute the factum of the amount having been misappropriated. Further, the petitioner is already holding the post of fair price shop dealer. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the impugned proceedings. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.04.10.2010. GJ