IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3454 of 2009 Between: P. Suhasan Bab S/o. P.G. Chandra Paul under NREGS (National Rural Employment Guaranteed Scheme), O/o. M.P.D.O., Sankavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector & District Programme Co-ordinator, NREGS AP, East Godavari, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2 The Project Director / Addtional Project Coordinator, District Water Management Agency under NREGS, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 3 The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Sankavaram Mandal,East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus (a) declare the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing impugned proceedings No.A1/200/Dwama/2009 dated 19.01.2009 (served on 02.02.2009) as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Circular No.4553/NREGS-A.P./2008 dated 02.07.2008 of the Commissioner Rural Development and the impupgned proceedings are liable to be set aside; and (b) consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Additional Programme Officer in the office of the third respondent with all consequential benefits attached to the post of Additional Programme Officer and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3454 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioner was appointed as a technical Assistant vide proceedings Rc.No. E/68/EGS/DWMA/2007, dated 6-9-2007 issued by the District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. He was allotted to Inavilli Mandal as Technical Assistant. His wife suffered with cancer and died leaving behind two small kids. He requested the Project Director/Additional Project Coordinator, District Water Management Agency under NREGS, East Godavari-2nd respondent to transfer him to any of the vacancy available to Uppada. The 2nd Respondent considered his request and transferred him to Shankavaram Mandal where he joined on 17-2-2008. His father died on 30-3-2008, mother died in the month of July, 2008. The 2nd respondent issued show cause notice dated 19-1-2009 to him imparting certain allegations with regard to implementation of work under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. He submitted his explanation to the show cause notice. He assailed the show cause notice on the ground that the Project Director has no authority to pass the same. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission, learned Government Pleader for Panchayath Raj takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that 2nd Respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the proceedings impugned in this writ petition. He would further submit that the 2nd respondent has not verified the functions of Technical Assistant as enumerated in G.O.Ms.No.368 before issuing the proceedings impugned in the writ petition and therefore the same are liable to be set aside. 5. I have gone through the Circular No. 4553/NREGS-A.P./2008, dated 2-7-2008. The procedure for termination of contractual employees has been detailed in the Circular which reads as follows: “An appeal on the termination of services of Technical Assistant/Computer Operator cum Accounts Assistant/ Additional Programme Officer will lie with the District Programme Coordinator (DPC)/ District Collector, if made within 30 days from the date of service of order on the Technical Assistant/Computer Operator cum Accounts Assistant/Additional Programme Officer. The DPC/District Collector shall examine the appeals and dispose them with a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of appeal in his/her office. The orders of the DPC shall be final and binding. However, the contract employee shall not have any right to work or allowances during the period of appeal”. 6. It is explicit from the above Circular that the 2nd respondent is empowered to terminate the services of the contract employees. Termination includes keeping the contract employee away from the employment pending enquiry. 7. In that view of the matter I do not see any substance in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears, that the petitioner submitted explanation to show cause notice, dated 19-1-2009 in which case, the 2nd respondent has to conduct an enquiry as per the guidelines issued in the Circular, dated 2-7-2008 and pass appropriate orders. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 24th February, 2009. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3454 OF 2009 24th February, 2009