IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12182 of 2008 Between: Kumari Bukya Manjula D/o. Vasram R/o. Nandapuram Village, Tirumalagiri Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector (Panchayat Wing), Nalgonda. 2 The District Panchayat Officer, Nalgonda. 3 The Mandal Parishat Development Officer, M.P. Tirumalagiri Mandal, Nalgonda District. 4 The Asst. Project Officer, EGS, Mandal Parishad, M.P. Tirumalagiri Mandal, Nalgonda District. 5 The Sarpanch, Nandapuram Gram Panchayat, Tirumalagiri 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the Notice issued by the 3rd respondent dt. 27.02.2008 in letter No.EGS/098/2008 suspending the petitioner from the post of Field Assistant, without issuing any notice and without following the due process of Law, as illegal, arbitrary, against to the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in the post of Field Assistant of Nandapuram Village, Tirumalagiri Mandal, Nalgonda District and to grant such other relief or reliefs. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.DUGGEMPUDI SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is appointed as Field Assistant under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme for the Village Nandapuram, Tirumalagiri Mandal, Nalgonda District. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, the third respondent herein, issued proceedings, dated 27.02.2008, placing the petitioner under suspension. The third respondent was also directed to recover certain amount from the petitioner. The said proceedings are challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is placed under suspension on the basis of certain allegations. Though the order is not clear as to whether the suspension is pending enquiry, it has to be presumed that a detailed enquiry is contemplated against the petitioner. Even as regards the direction for recovery of amount, the version of the petitioner needs to be examined. The petitioner can be permitted to submit his detailed explanation for the allegations made against him and the third respondent, in turn, can be required to pass final orders on a consideration of such explanation. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that: (a) it shall be open to the petitioner to submit a detailed explanation as regards the allegations made against him, within a period of 15 days from today; (b) on receipt of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the third respondent shall pass a final order, if necessary by undertaking verification of the facts from other sources. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:29.07.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}