THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.17084 and 11920 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in W.P.No.17084 of 2010. Respondent No.5 herein was appointed as Field Assistant for Rachayapet Village of Gopavaram Mandal, Kadapa District under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (for short ‘the Scheme’). Through order, dated 12.02.2010, respondent No.3 terminated the service of respondent No.5. It was stated that the explanation submitted by respondent No.5 in response to a show cause notice was not satisfactory. Respondent No.5 was said to have not accounted for a sum of Rs.9,140/-. W.P.No.11920 of 2010 is filed challenging the said order. In the vacancy that arose on account of dismissal of respondent No.5, the petitioner, who was working as Mate in the same Village under the Scheme, was appointed as Field Assistant. During the pendency of W.P.No.11920 of 2010, respondent No.4 passed an order, dated 31.05.2010, directing reinstatement of respondent No.5 as Field Assistant. As a result, the petitioner was reverted and posted as Mate. W.P.No.17084 of 2010 is filed challenging the said order. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and the learned counsel for respondent No.5. The petitioner was functioning as Mate under the Scheme and respondent No.5 as Field Assistant. The removal of respondent No.5 from the post of Field Assistant gave rise to the appointment of the petitioner as Field Assistant/Rojgar Sevak. On respondent No.5 being reinstated, the petitioner came to be reverted. It is, no doubt, true that there is no specific order setting aside the order of removal of respondent No.5. There is hardly any definite set of rules to govern the service conditions of the persons engaged under the Scheme. Everything is being done on ad hoc basis and according to the understanding of the authorities concerned. Recently, this Court disposed of W.P.No.14121 of 2009 and batch laying down the guidelines to be fallowed in matters of this nature. The case of respondent No.5 needs to be considered in accordance with the same. Pending that, he needs to be continued as Field Assistant. In case the services of respondent No.5 come to be terminated, the resultant vacancy deserves to be offered to the petitioner. Following the guidelines stipulated in W.P.14121 of 2009 and batch, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. It is, however, directed that:- (1) The competent disciplinary authority shall follow strictly the guidelines laid down in Circular No.143/SRDS/HR Manual/2009, dated 27.1.2010 and the rules laid down vide G.O.Ms.NO.98, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (RD.II) Department, dated 09.03.2010, for the purpose of conducting enquiry, social audit etc; (2) If a report of the Gram Panchayat is received by the disciplinary authority, a copy of the same shall be furnished to the delinquent Field Assistant/Technical Assistant and if any witnesses are mentioned therein, they shall be examined in the presence of such Field Assistant/Technical Assistant and they shall be permitted to cross-examine such witnesses; (3) If action is based on a social audit, majority members of the Gram Panchayat and the delinquent Field Assistant/Technical Assistant must be invited to the Gram Sabha and, in their presence, Gram Sabha should be conducted; (4) Any objections raised by the delinquent may be recorded by the Social Audit team and if action is based on MPDO’s own inspection/verification and the inspection by any other functionaries like Assistant P.D. etc., the inspection report showing allegations against the delinquent shall be furnished to the delinquent Field Assistant/Technical Assistant and the delinquent should be allowed to file his/her objections, if any, and after filing the objections, the authorities are at liberty to take appropriate decision, as per law, and pass further orders, after giving show cause notice and personal hearing in the matter; (5) The entire procedure must be completed within a period of 30 days as contemplated under the guidelines from the date of issuing initial show cause notice, enumerating the charges. In case of suspension of an employee, he/she is entitled for subsistence allowance only for thirty days and if there is any delay occurred in conducting the enquiry, it may be extended for another one month, but, in any case, the enquiry cannot be extended beyond the period of two months; (6) In any case, if it is found that the delinquent has committed misappropriation, it is always open for the authorities, after passing the final orders, to recover the same, as per law; (7) In all the cases where recovery is contemplated, a fresh enquiry shall be conducted and completed, as per the directions of this Court, as above, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any separate recovery proceedings are issued in pursuance of the impugned proceedings herein, they shall stand stayed during the pendency of the fresh enquiry; (8) The exercise indicated above in respect of the respondent No.5 shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and (9) It is further directed that in case the services of respondent No.5 are terminated after following such procedure, the case of the petitioner shall be considered for appointment to the post of Field Assistant. Pending such exercise, the petitioner shall continue as Mate and respondent No.5 as Field Assistant. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:21.09.2010. kdl