APHC010667222012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 21106/2012 Between: Gaddam Venkata Siva Reddy, ...PETITIONER AND The Commissioner and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GUTTAPALEM VIJAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV The Court made the following Order: The petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated 02.05.2012, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected, and the contract agreement of the petitioner was terminated. 2. The petitioner was selected and appointed as a Field Assistant for Rachapalli Grama Panchayat, Ramapuram Mandal, Kadapa District, on 24.06.2009. The petitioner received a show- cause notice on 18.12.2011, alleging misappropriation of NREGS funds. The petitioner submitted an explanation dated 25.12.2011, however, the 3rd respondent passed an order dated 04.04.2012, terminating the petitioner from duty. The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent, and the 2nd respondent passed the impugned proceedings dated 02.05.2012, confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, appearing virtually online, submits that the impugned proceedings did not reflect the explanation submitted by the petitioner and that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity to rebut the allegations. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner’s services were engaged on a contract basis for a limited period. Due to the petitioner’s involvement in the misappropriation of the funds, an enquiry was conducted, and personal hearing was granted to the petitioner. After considering the petitioner’s submissions, all relevant procedures were followed before issuing the impugned proceedings. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not been in service since 04.04.2012 and the petitioner cannot claim an extension of the contract. 5. Upon recording the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, it is evident from the pleadings that the petitioner faced allegations of misappropriation of funds. The disciplinary authority passed a reasoned order, duly considering the allegations and the explanation submitted by the petitioner. 6. After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority issued the impugned proceedings on 04.04.2012, terminating the petitioner’s contract. The appellate authority also considered the issue and found no grounds for interference, and accordingly rejected the petitioner’s appeal. This Court cannot interfere with the disciplinary proceedings, as there is no evidence to suggest any violation of principles of natural justice in issuing the impugned proceedings on the part of the respondents in following due procedure. Moreover, there is no iota of evidence to establish that the petitioner was treated arbitrarily or that the inquiry was conducted in an unfair manner. 7. With the above observations, the present Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 14th February, 2025 cbn 51 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 21106 of 2012 14th February, 2025 cbn