IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 4811 of 2008 Between: 1 Gogikar Eswarji S/o Yadagiri R/o Murpunuthala Village, Chandampet Mandal, Nalgonda District. 2 Vankunavath Motilal S/o Ratya R/o Kambalapalli Village, Chandampet Mandal, Nalgonda District. 3 Jakkala Parvathi D/o Lingaiah R/o Kambalapalli Village, Chandampet Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 District Collector-cum-Programme Co-ordinator, EGS, Nalgonda District 2 The Project Director/Addl. Programme Co-ordinator (EGS) DWMA, Nalgonda 3 The Mandal Parishat Development Officer, Chandampet Mandal, Nalgonda District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 issue Writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in removing the petitioners from the post of Field Assistants, without issuing any notice and without following the due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioners in the post of field Assistants of Murpunuthala, Kacharajupalli and Kambalapalli Villages of Chandampet Mandal, Nalgonda district, and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.PALLENAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioners as Field Assistants without any notice and without following due process of law. It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to the notification issued by the 2nd respondent – Project Director/Additional Programme Coordinator (EGS) DWMA, Nalgonda on 1.4.2006 for filling up the posts of Field Assistants, they submitted their applications and after careful scrutiny of their applications and eligibility, they were being appointed as Field Assistants at Murpunuthala, Kacharajupalli and Kambalapalli Villages of Chandampet Mandal, Nalgonda District. Thereafter, pursuant to the directions of the 3rd respondent, the Sarpanchas of the respective villages issued them the individual appointment letters. While things stood thus, a news item is published in Eenadu Daily News paper on 29.1.2008 wherein it was reported that the MPDO, Garidepally removed Field Assistants in Garidepally mandal as per the instructions of the higher authorities. The grievance of the petitioners is that they were orally informed by the 3rd respondent that they were removed from the post of Field Assistants as per the instructions of the higher authorities and not allowed them to discharge their duties without disclosing any reason. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the entire mode of payment is through cheques, which would be deposited into the account of the concerned beneficiary through post offices concerned and, therefore, there is no chance or possibility to commit any irregularities as alleged. Alternatively it is contended that even assuming that any irregularities have been found to be committed by the petitioners, the authorities have to follow the procedure contemplated under law by issuing a show cause notice and seek for the explanation and take further action in the matter. In the instant case, since the petitioners were not afforded with any opportunity whatsoever to defend themselves, the impugned action cannot sustain for violation of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel further contends that only at the instance of the local political leaders, the 3rd respondent has taken the impugned decision even though he has no authority or jurisdiction to pass such an order that too when such an order is supposed to be passed after calling for the resolution from the Gram Panchayat or the Grama Sabha. Even though they were approaching the authorities to consider their cases by placing the matter before the higher authorities, the respondents are dodging the matter on one pretext or the other and are now proceeding further to fill those vacancies on permanent basis. This court while issuing notice to the respondents on 5.3.2008 granted interim stay of the impugned suspension order. Thereafter, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit along with a petition seeking vacation of the interim order. It is stated in the counter affidavit that in order to implement the National Employment Guarantee Act, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.471 dated 15.10.2007 for filling up the posts of Field Assistants and as per the said G.O. the 3rd respondent – Mandal Parishad Development Officer is the appointing authority. It is further stated that after receiving complaints against the petitioners with regard to the works to be taken up by them, the authorities have conducted an open enquiry and a social audit to check up the works undertaken under the said scheme which revealed that the 1st petitioner misappropriated an amount of Rs.68,088/- among which he blocked an amount of Rs.29,500/- which was scheduled to be paid to the coolies who executed the work and an amount of Rs.38,588/- were drawn on the name of the persons who did not involve in execution of work in Moorpuluthala Village, Chandampet Mandal, Nalgonda District. As regards the 2nd petitioner, it is stated that he misappropriated an amount of Rs.4,760/- which he has drawn in the name of persons who did not involve in the execution of work. The 3rd petitioner has misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,93,030/- which he has drawn and did not pay to the actual workers of Kambalapalli Village and an amount of Rs.54,066/- was drawn and misused on the name of Rekulavayam hamlet of Kambalapalli Gram Panchayat. It is also stated that the 3rd petitioner has even cut down certain commission from the amounts to be paid to the workers to an extent of Rs.5,405/-. Further, though the 3rd petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant, in fact, her husband is acting as Field Assistant in her place and he has threatened the members of the social audit team to give a favourable report of his wife. The said fact was also revealed to the District Collector/Programme Coordinator, Employment Guarantee Scheme, Nalgonda. It is further stated that in the social audit conducted in the open forum all the villagers and wage seekers as well as the authorities attended before whom the 1st petitioner admitted that he misappropriated an amount of Rs.29,500/- and subsequently paid the said amount. As regards conducting of regular enquiry, it is stated that the petitioners are not regular employees and they were appointed temporarily under the scheme and as such there is no necessity to conduct regular enquiry. That apart, the petitioners themselves admitted their guilt before the social audit. A perusal of the above counter averments clearly reveal that the petitioners are temporarily appointed and there is no proposal to fill the vacancies of Field Assistants on permanent basis. In the social enquiry conducted, the petitioners admitted their guilt and since their activities do not serve the motive and purpose of the scheme and their attitude was infecting other executants, they were removed by the authorities. In fact, the 1st petitioner has also paid the amount misappropriated by him. In those circumstances, since the motive of the scheme to give guaranteed employment to enhance the livelihood security of the house holds in the rural areas of the country by providing atleast 100 days of guaranteed wage in every financial year, cannot be achieved by employing persons who indulge in illegal activities, the action taken by the authorities to remove such staff cannot be found fault with. The writ petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.03.12.2008 msv