The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.29926 of 2011 Date: 10th November, 2011 Between: V.Dora Swamy ..... Petitioner and 1.The Government of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary- Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 8 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.N.Ravi Prasad Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5 & 9: ---- Counsel for Respondent No.2, 6 to 8: AGP for Social Welfare The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner- Tahsildar of Pamulapadu Mandal, Kurnool District, filed this Writ Petition questioning the report in Rc.A-194/2010, dated 21-03-2011, of respondent No.9- Tahsildar of Krishnagiri Mandal, Kurnool District, submitted to respondent No.4- Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Kurnool District, and notice in Rc.No.20/RE-KUR/2010, dated 21-04-2011, issued by respondent No.4, calling for his explanation as to why regular enquiry should not be held regarding certain allegations of corruption. For disposal of this Writ Petition, it is not necessary to refer to the facts in detail. It will suffice to note that the petitioner is one of the Mandal Housing Officers entrusted with the function of supervising the construction work taken up under Indiramma Housing Programme. On the serious allegations levelled against the persons, incharge of this programme, respondent No.5- District Collector, Kurnool District, has constituted a Committee, headed by respondent No.9, which, on enquiry, submitted its report on 21-03-2011 wherein adverse findings were rendered against the petitioner and four others. Following the said report, respondent No.4 has issued notice, dated 21-04- 2011, wherein it is stated that, in the enquiry, held into the allegations of corruption in the construction of 524 houses under the Indiramma Housing Programme Phase II in T.Gokulapadu Village, Krishnagiri Mandal, Kurnool District, it came to light that the petitioner was involved in irregular payment of Rs.24,98,003/- on the binami houses, old houses and the house already covered by the Government Schemes other than under Indiramma Housing Programme and that in the construction of 317 houses in T.Gokulapadu Village, the petitioner has abused his official position with corrupt motive. The petitioner was, therefore, called upon to submit his explanation within seven days failing which the enquiry will be completed on the basis of the material available. Questioning these two proceedings of respondent Nos.9 and 4, the present Writ Petition is filed. The petitioner has pleaded that he is not responsible for the alleged irregularities and that he cannot be found fault with. In my opinion, so far, no order, adverse to the interests of the petitioner, has been passed. While respondent No.9 has submitted his report to respondent No.5, who has not yet taken any action, respondent No.4 has initiated an independent enquiry and offered an opportunity of participating in the enquiry to the petitioner. Unless these enquiries culminated in passing an adverse order against the petitioner, no cause, for him to approach this Court, would arise. The petitioner has not offered any explanation as to why he failed to respond to notice, dated 02-04-2011, of respondent No.4. If the petitioner has any defence, he shall be free to submit his explanation to respondent No.4 with a request to him to drop all further proceedings. Instead, he has unnecessarily rushed to this Court without there being any cause of action. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed without going into the merits of the case and with liberty to the petitioner to file his explanation to notice, dated 21-04-2011, issued by respondent No.4. The petitioner shall also be free to avail appropriate legal remedy in the event any action is taken against him on the report submitted by respondent No.9 to respondent No.5. As a sequel, WPMP.No.37082 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 10th November, 2011 LUR