THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12343 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioner is a Field Assistant appointed in execution of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) in July, 2007. On the ground that he had collected Rs.500/- from each beneficiary of Indiramma Housing Plots Scheme (for short ‘the Scheme’) in Vadlamuru Village, he was placed under suspension by the third respondent – Mandal Parishad Development Officer and Programme Officer, NREGS, Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that with regard to the said allegation, an enquiry was conducted by the fourth respondent – Assistant Project Director, DWMA, Peddapuram, East Godavari, who in turn submitted a report clearly recording a finding that the petitioner had not collected any amount for issuing pattas in the Scheme and a false petition was filed against him due to some disputes in the Village. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the third respondent is not the competent authority to place him under suspension and that too, in spite of clear enquiry report of the fourth respondent. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner filed a detailed representation, dated 19.01.2010 before the second respondent - Project Director, District Water Management Authority (DWMA), East Godavari, on 19.01.2010, but so far, no action has been taken thereon. I have perused the copy of the order of suspension and the enquiry report submitted by the fourth respondent. From a reading of the impugned order of suspension, it is clear that there is an allegation that the petitioner had collected Rs.500/- from each beneficiary of the Scheme in Vadlamuru Village and on the basis of the said allegation, a show cause notice, dated 27.10.2009 was also issued to him. After receiving the explanation of the petitioner on 08.11.2009, he was placed under suspension. Though the petitioner relied on the findings recorded by the fourth respondent, it is not known why no further action has been taken. Be that as it may, as the petitioner had already approached the second respondent by way of representation, dated 19.01.2010, I deem it appropriate to direct him to consider such representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as per law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to observe that while passing orders, the second respondent shall look into the report stated to have been sent by the fourth respondent, who recorded a finding in his enquiry report that the petitioner had not collected amounts from the beneficiaries for issuing pattas under the Scheme, and communicate the same to the petitioner. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th JUNE, 2010. kvni